3V\(oOO 
.  Kr1^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/jewishtheologysyOOkohl_0 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •  BOSTON  -  CHICAGO  •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •  SAN  FRANCISCO 


MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


JEWISH  THEOL 


V 


SYSTEMATICALLY  AND  HISTORICALLY 

CONSIDERED 


t 


BY 

Dr.  K.  KOHLER 

PRESIDENT 

HEBREW  UNION  COLLEGE 


SWYQrSITY  OF 
N  SEMINARY  lift? 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


1923 


jAll  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1918, 

By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.  Published  February,  1918. 


Norfooob 

J.  S.  Cushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


M6. 

Ki^ 

TO  THE  MEMORY 

OF 

j£bw>arb  X.  Ibeinsbeimer 

The  Lamented  President  of  the 
Board  of  Governors  of 

Cbe  Ibebrew  TUnion  College 

In  Whom  Zeal  for  the  High  Ideals 
of  Judaism  and  Patriotic  Devo¬ 
tion  to  Our  Blessed  Country  Were 
Nobly  Embodied 

IN  FRIENDSHIP  AND 
AFFECTION 


PREFACE 


In  offering  herewith  to  the  English-reading  public  the  pres¬ 
ent  work  on  Jewish  Theology,  the  result  of  many  years  of 
research  and  of  years  of  activity  as  President  and  teacher  at 
the  Hebrew  Union  College  of  Cincinnati,  I  bespeak  for  it  that 
fairness  of  judgment  to  which  every  pioneer  work  is  entitled. 
It  may  seem  rather  strange  that  no  such  work  has  hitherto 
been  written  by  any  of  the  leading  Jewish  scholars  of  either 
the  conservative  or  the  progressive  school.  This  can  only  be 
accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  up  to  modern  times  the  Rab¬ 
binical  and  philosophical  literature  of  the  Middle  Ages  sufficed 
for  the  needs  of  the  student,  and  a  systematic  exposition  of 
the  Jewish  faith  seemed  to  be  unnecessary.  Besides,  a  real 
demand  for  the  specific  study  of  Jewish  theology  was  scarcely 
felt,  inasmuch  as  Judaism  never  assigned  to  a  creed  the 
prominent  position  which  it  holds  in  the  Christian  Church. 
This  very  fact  induced  Moses  Mendelssohn  at  the  beginning 
of  the  new  era  to  declare  that  Judaism  “contained  only 
truths  dictated  by  reason  and  no  dogmatic  beliefs  at  all.” 
Moreover,  as  he  was  rather  a  deist  than  a  theist,  he  stated 
boldly  that  Judaism  “is  not  a  revealed  religion  but  a  revealed 
law  intended  solely  for  the  Jewish  people  as  the  vanguard  of 
universal  monotheism.”  By  taking  this  legalistic  view  of 
Judaism  in  common  with  the  former  opponents  of  the  Mai- 
monidean  articles  of  faith  —  which,  by  the  way,  he  had  him¬ 
self  translated  for  the  religious  instruction  of  the  Jewish  youth 
—  he  exerted  a  deteriorating  influence  upon  the  normal  devel¬ 
opment  of  the  Jewish  faith  under  the  new  social  conditions. 
The  fact  is  that  Mendelssohn  emancipated  the  modern  Jew 


Vll 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


from  the  thraldom  of  the  Ghetto,  but  not  Judaism.  In  the 
Mendelssohnian  circle  the  impression  prevailed,  as  we  are 
told,  that  Judaism  consists  of  a  system  of  forms,  but  is  sub¬ 
stantially  no  religion  at  all.  The  entire  Jewish  renaissance 
period  which  followed,  characteristically  enough,  made  the 
cultivation  of  the  so-called  science  of  Judaism  its  object,  but 
it  neglected  altogether  the  whole  field  of  Jewish  theology. 
Hence  we  look  in  vain  among  the  writings  of  Rappaport, 
Zunz,  Jost  and  their  followers,  the  entire  Breslau  school,  for 
any  attempt  at  presenting  the  contents  of  Judaism  as  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  faith.  Only  the  pioneers  of  Reform  Judaism,  Geiger, 
Holdheim,  Samuel  Hirsch,  Formstecher,  Ludwig  Philippson, 
Leopold  Stein,  Leopold  Loew,  and  the  Reform  theologian  par 
excellence  David  Einhorn,  and  likewise,  Isaac  M.  Wise  in 
America,  made  great  efforts  in  that  direction.  Still  a  system 
of  Jewish  theology  was  wanting.  Accordingly  when,  at  the 
suggestion  of  my  dear  departed  friend,  Dr.  Gustav  Karpeles, 
President  of  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  the  Science  of 
Judaism  in  Berlin,  I  undertook  to  write  a  compendium  (Grun- 
driss)  of  Systematic  Jewish  Theology,  which  appeared  in  1910 
as  Vol.  IV  in  a  series  of  works  on  Systematic  Jewish  Lore 
(Grundriss  der  Gesammtwissenschaft  des  Judenthums),  I  had 
no  work  before  me  that  might  have  served  me  as  pattern  or 
guide.  Solomon  Schechter’s  valuable  studies  were  in  the  main 
confined  to  Rabbinical  Theology.  As  a  matter  of  fact  I  ac¬ 
cepted  the  task  only  with  the  understanding  that  it  should  be 
written  from  the  view-point  of  historical  research,  instead  of  a 
mere  dogmatic  or  doctrinal  system.  For  in  my  opinion  the 
Jewish  religion  has  never  been  static,  fixed  for  all  time  by  an 
ecclesiastical  authority,  but  has  ever  been  and  still  is  the  result 
of  a  dynamic  process  of  growth  and  development.  At  the 
same  time  I  felt  that  I  could  not  omit  the  mystical  element 
which  pervades  the  Jewish  religion  in  common  with  all  others. 
As  our  prophets  were  seers  and  not  philosophers  or  moralists, 


PREFACE 


IX 


so  divine  inspiration  in  varying  degrees  constituted  a  factor  of 
Synagogal  as  well  as  Scriptural  Judaism,  Revelation,  there¬ 
fore,  is  to  be  considered  as  a  continuous  force  in  shaping  and 
reshaping  the  Jewish  faith.  The  religious  genius  of  the  Jew 
falls  within  the  domain  of  ethnic  psychology  concerning  which 
science  still  gropes  in  the  dark,  but  which  progressive  Judaism 
is  bound  to  recognize  in  its  effects  throughout  the  ages. 

It  is  from  this  standpoint,  taken  also  by  the  sainted  founder 
of  the  Hebrew  Union  College,  Isaac  M.  Wise,  that  I  have  writ¬ 
ten  this  book.  At  the  same  time  I  endeavored  to  be,  as  it 
behooves  the  historian,  just  and  fair  to  Conservative  Judaism, 
which  will  ever  claim  the  reverence  we  owe  to  our  cherished 
past,  the  mother  that  raised  and  nurtured  us. 

While  a  work  of  this  nature  cannot  lay  claim  to  complete¬ 
ness,  I  have  attempted  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  Jewish  belief, 
including  also  such  subjects  as  no  longer  form  parts  of  the 
religious  consciousness  of  the  modern  Jew.  I  felt  especially 
called  upon  to  elucidate  the  historical  relations  of  Judaism 
to  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan  religions  and  dwell  on  the 
essential  points  of  divergence  from  them.  If  my  language  at 
times  has  been  rather  vigorous  in  defense  of  the  Jewish  faith, 
it  was  because  I  was  forced  to  correct  and  refute  the  prevail¬ 
ing  view  of  the  Christian  world,  of  both  theologians  and  others, 
that  Judaism  is  an  inferior  religion,  clannish  and  exclusive, 
that  it  is,  in  fact,  a  cult  of  the  Old  Testament  Law. 

It  was  a  matter  of  great  personal  satisfaction  to  me  that  the 
German  work  on  its  appearance  met  with  warm  appreciation 
in  the  various  theological  journals  of  America,  England,  and 
France,  as  well  as  of  Germany,  including  both  Jewish  and 
Christian.  I  was  encouraged  and  urged  by  many  ‘  ‘  soon  to  make 
the  book  accessible  to  wider  circles  in  an  English  translation.” 
My  friend,  Dr.  Israel  Abrahams  of  Cambridge,  England,  took 
such  interest  in  the  book  that  he  induced  a  young  friend  of  his 
to  prepare  an  English  version.  While  this  did  not  answer  the 


X 


PREFACE 


purpose,  it  was  helpful  to  me  in  making  me  feel  that,  instead  of 
a  literal  translation,  a  thorough  revision  and  remolding  of  the 
book  was  necessary  in  order  to  present  it  in  an  acceptable  Eng¬ 
lish  garb.  In  pursuing  this  course,  I  also  enlarged  the  book 
in  many  ways,  especially  adding  a  new  chapter  on  Jewish 
Ethics,  which,  in  connection  with  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  appeared  to  me  to  form  a  fitting  culmination  of  Jewish 
theology.  I  have  thus  rendered  it  practically  a  new  work. 
And  here  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  great  indebtedness  to  my 
young  friend  and  able  pupil,  Rabbi  Lee  J.  Levinger,  for  the 
valuable  aid  he  has  rendered  me  and  the  painstaking  labor  he 
has  kindly  and  unselfishly  performed  in  going  over  my  manu¬ 
script  from  beginning  to  end,  with  a  view  to  revising  the 
diction  and  also  suggesting  references  to  more  recent  publica¬ 
tions  in  the  notes  so  as  to  bring  it  up  to  date. 

I  trust  that  the  work  will  prove  a  source  of  information 
and  inspiration  for  both  student  and  layman,  Jew  and  non- 
Jew,  and  induce  such  as  have  become  indifferent  to,  or  preju¬ 
diced  against,  the  teachings  of  the  Synagogue,  or  of  Reform 
Judaism  in  particular,  to  take  a  deeper  insight  into,  and  look 
up  with  a  higher  regard  to  the  sublime  and  eternal  verities 
of  Judaism. 

“Give  to  a  wise  man,  and  he  will  be  yet  wiser;  teach  a 
righteous  man,  and  he  will  increase  in  learning.” 


Cincinnati,  November,  1917. 


CONTENTS 

TAGE 

Preface . vii 

Introduction  : 

CHAPTER 

I.  The  Meaning  of  Theology  .  .  .  .  i  .  i 

II.  What  is  Judaism  ? . 7 

III.  The  Essence  of  the  Religion  of  Judaism  .  .  15 

IV.  The  Jewish  Articles  of  Faith . 19 


PART  I:  GOD 


A.  GOD  AS  HE  MAKES  HIMSELF  KNOWN  TO  MAN 

V.  Man’s  Consciousness  of  God  and  Belief  in  God  .  29 

VI.  Revelation,  Prophecy,  and  Inspiration  ...  34 

VII.  The  Torah,  the  Divine  Instruction  .  .  .  .42 

VIII.  God’s  Covenant . 48 

B.  THE  IDEA  OF  GOD  IN  JUDAISM 


IX.  God  and  the  Gods 

X.  The  Names  of  God 

XI.  The  Existence  of  God  . 

XII.  The  Essence  of  God 

XIII.  The  One  and  Only  God 

XIV.  God’s  Omnipotence  and  Omniscience 

XV.  God’s  Omnipresence  and  Eternity 

XVI.  God’s  Holiness  .... 

XVII.  God’s  Wrath  and  Punishment 
XVIII.  God’s  Long-suffering  and  Mercy 
XIX.  God’s  Justice  .... 
XX.  God’s  Love  and  Compassion 


52 

58 

64 

72 

82 

91 

96 

101 

107 

112 

118 

126 


XI 


Xll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXI.  God’s  Truth  and  Faithfulness  .  .  .  .  134 

XXII.  God’s  Knowledge  and  Wisdom  ....  138 

XXIII.  God’s  Condescension . 142 

C.  GOD  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  WORLD 

XXIV.  The  World  and  Its  Master . 146 

XXV.  Creation  as  the  Act  of  God  .  .  .  .152 

XXVI.  The  Maintenance  and  Government  of  the 

World . 156 

XXVII.  Miracles  and  the  Cosmic  Order  .  .  .  .160 

XXVIII.  Providence  and  the  Moral  Government  of  the 

World . 167 

XXIX.  God  and  the  Existence  of  Evil  .  .  .  .176 

XXX.  God  and  the  Angels . 180 

XXXI.  Satan  and  the  Spirits  of  Evil  .  .  .  .189 

XXXII.  God  and  the  Intermediary  Powers  .  .  .  197 


PART  II:  MAN 


XXXIII.  Man’s  Place  in  Creation . 206 

XXXIV.  The  Dual  Nature  of  Man . 212 

XXXV.  The  Origin  and  Destiny  of  Man  .  .  .  .218 

XXXVI.  God’s  Spirit  in  Man . 226 

XXXVII.  Free  Will  and  Moral  Responsibility  .  .  .231 

XXXVIII.  The  Meaning  of  Sin . 238 

XXXIX.  Repentance,  or  the  Return  to  God  .  .  .  246 

XL.  Man,  the  Child  of  God . 256 

XLI.  Prayer  and  Sacrifice . 261 

XLII.  The  Nature  and  Purpose  of  Prayer  .  .  .271 

XLIII.  Death  and  the  Future  Life . 278 

XLIV.  The  Immortal  Soul  of  Man . 286 

XLV.  Divine  Retribution:  Reward  and  Punishment  .  298 
XL VI.  The  Individual  and  the  Race  .  .  .  .310 

XL VII.  The  Moral  Elements  of  Civilization  .  .  .316 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

XL  VIII. 
XLIX. 
L. 
LI. 

LIT 

Lin. 

LIV. 

LV. 

LVI. 

LVII. 

LVIII. 

LIX. 


PART  III:  ISRAEL  AND  THE  KINGDOM 

OF  GOD 

The  Election  of  Israel . 

The  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  Mission  of  Israel 
The  Priest-people  and  its  Law  of  Holiness  . 
Israel,  the  People  of  the  Law,  and  its  World 

Mission . 

Israel,  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  Martyr  and 

Messiah  of  the  Nations . 

The  Messianic  Hope . 

Resurrection,  a  National  Hope  . 

Israel  and  the  Heathen  Nations  . 

The  Stranger  and  the  Proselyte  . 

Christianity  and  Mohammedanism  the  Daughter- 

religions  of  Judaism . 

The  Synagogue  and  its  Institutions 

The  Ethics  of  Judaism  and  the  Kingdom  of  God 

List  of  Abbreviations . 

Index  . 


•  •  • 

xm 


PAGE 

323 

331 

342 

354 

367 

378 

392 

397 

408 

426 

447 

477 

493 

497 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


CHAPTER  I 

The  Meaning  of  Theology 

1.  The  name  Theology,  “the  teaching  concerning  God,” 
is  taken  from  Greek  philosophy.  It  was  used  by  Plato  and 
Aristotle  to  denote  the  knowledge  concerning  God  and  things 
godly,  by  which  they  meant  the  branch  of  Philosophy  later 
called  Metaphysics,  after  Aristotle.  In  the  Christian  Church 
the  term  gradually  assumed  the  meaning  of  systematic  ex¬ 
position  of  the  creed,  a  distinction  being  made  between 
Rational ,  or  Natural  Theology ,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Dogmatic 
Theology ,  on  the  other.1  In  common  usage  Theology  is 
understood  to  be  the  presentation  of  one  specific  system  of 
faith  after  some  logical  method,  and  a  distinction  is  made 
between  Historical  and  Systematic  Theology.  The  former 
traces  the  various  doctrines  of  the  faith  in  question  through 
the  different  epochs  and  stages  of  culture,  showing  their  his¬ 
torical  process  of  growth  and  development;  the  latter  pre¬ 
sents  these  same  doctrines  in  comprehensive  form  as  a  fixed 
system,  as  they  have  finally  been  elaborated  and  accepted* 
upon  the  basis  of  the  sacred  scriptures  and  their  authoritative 
interpretation. 

2.  Theology  and  Philosophy  of  Religion  differ  widely  in 
their  character.  Theology  deals  exclusively  with  a  specific 
religion ;  in  expounding  one  doctrinal  system,  it  starts  from 

1  Compare  Heinrici:  Theologische  Encyclopaedic ,  p.  4;  Enc.  Brit.  art.  The¬ 
ology. 

B  I 


J 


2 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


a  positive  belief  in  a  divine  revelation  and  in  the  continued 
working  of  the  divine  spirit,  affecting  also  the  interpretation 
and  further  development  of  the  sacred  books.  Philosophy 
of  Religion,  on  the  other  hand,  while  dealing  with  the  same 
subject  matter  as  Theology,  treats  religion  from  a  general 
point  of  view  as  a  matter  of  experience,  and,  as  every  philos¬ 
ophy  must,  without  any  foregone  conclusion.  Consequently 
it  submits  the  beliefs  and  doctrines  of  religion  in  general  to 
an  impartial  investigation,  recognizing  neither  a  divine  reve¬ 
lation  nor  the  superior  claims  of  any  one  religion  above  any 
other,  its  main  object  being  to  ascertain  how  far  the  universal 
laws  of  human  reason  agree  or  disagree  with  the  assertions 
of  faith.1 

3.  It  is  therefore  incorrect  to  speak  of  a  Jewish  religious 
philosophy.  This  has  no  better  right  to  exist  than  has  Jewish 
metaphysics  or  Jewish  mathematics.2  The  Jewish  thinkers 
of  the  Spanish-Arabic  period  who  endeavored  to  harmonize 
revelation  and  reason,  utilizing  the  Neo-Platonic  philosophy 
or  the  Aristotelian  with  a  Neo-Platonic  coloring,  betray  by 
their  very  conceptions  of  revelation  and  prophecy  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  Mohammedan  theology;  this  was  really  a  graft 
of  metaphysics  on  theology  and  called  itself  the  “  divine 
science,”  a  term  corresponding  exactly  with  the  Greek  “ theol¬ 
ogy.”  The  so-called  Jewish  religious  philosophers  adopted 
both  the  methods  and  terminology  of  the  Mohammedan 
theologians,  attempting  to  present  the  doctrines  of  the  Jewish 
faith  in  the  light  of  philosophy,  as  truth  based  on  reason. 
Thus  they  claimed  to  construct  a  Jewish  theology  upon  the 
foundation  of  a  philosophy  of  religion. 

1  Heinrici,  1.  c.,  p.  14  f.,  212 ;  Hagenbach-Kautscli :  Encyc.  d.  theolog.  Wiss ., 
p.  28-30;  Rauwenhoff :  Religions  philosophic,  Einl.,  xiii;  Margolis :  “The 
Theological  Aspect  of  Reformed  Judaism,”  in  Yearbook  of  C.  C.  A.  R.,  1903, 
p.  188-192.  Lauterbach,  J.  E.,  art.  Theology. 

2  See,  however,  Geiger :  Nachgel.  Schriften,  II,  3-8 ;  also  Margolis,  1.  c., 
p.  192-196. 


THE  MEANING  OF  THEOLOGY 


3 


But  neither  they  nor  their  Mohammedan  predecessors 
succeeded  in  working  out  a  complete  system  of  theology. 
They  left  untouched  essential  elements  of  religion  which  do 
not  come  within  the  sphere  of  rational  verities,  and  did  not 
give  proper  appreciation  to  the  rich  treasures  of  faith  depos¬ 
ited  in  the  Biblical  and  Rabbinical  literature.  Nor  does  the 
comprehensive  theological  system  of  Maimonides,  which 
for  centuries  largely  shaped  the  intellectual  life  of  the  Jew, 
form  an  exception.  Only  the  mystics,  Bahya  at  their  head, 
paid  attention  to  the  spiritual  side  of  Judaism,  dwelling  at 
length  on  such  themes  as  prayer  and  repentance,  divine 
forgiveness  and  holiness. 

4.  Closer  acquaintance  with  the  religious  and  philosophical 
systems  of  modern  times  has  created  a  new  demand  for  a 
Jewish  theology  by  which  the  Jew  can  comprehend  his  own 
religious  truths  in  the  light  of  modern  thought,  and  at  the 
same  time  defend  them  against  the  aggressive  attitude  of  the 
ruling  religious  sects.  Thus  far,  however,  the  attempts  made 
in  this  direction  are  but  feeble  and  sporadic ;  if  the  structure 
is  not  to  stand  altogether  in  the  air,  the  necessary  material 
must  be  brought  together  from  its  many  sources  with  pains¬ 
taking  labor.1  The  special  difficulty  in  the  task  lies  in  the 
radical  difference  which  exists  between  our  view  of  the  past 
and  that  of  the  Biblical  and  medieval  writers.  All  those 
things  which  have  heretofore  been  taken  as  facts  because  related 
in  the  sacred  books  or  other  traditional  sources,  are  viewed 
to-day  with  critical  eyes,  and  are  now  regarded  as  more  or 
less  colored  by  human  impression  or  conditioned  by  human 
judgment.  In  other  words,  we  have  learned  to  distinguish 
between  subjective  and  objective  truths,2  whereas  theology  by 

1  A  fine  beginning  in  this  direction  has  been  made  by  Professor  Schechter 
in  Some  Aspects  of  Rabbinic  Theology ,  New  York,  1909. 

2  See  Joel:  “D.  Mosaismus  u.  d.  Heidenthum,”  in  Jahrb.  f.  Jued.  Gesch. 
und  Lit.,  1904,  p.  70-73. 


4 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


its  very  nature  deals  with  truth  as  absolute.  This  makes 
it  imperative  for  us  to  investigate  historically  the  leading 
idea  or  fundamental  principle  underlying  a  doctrine,  to  note 
the  different  conceptions  formed  at  various  stages,  and  trace 
its  process  of  growth.  At  times,  indeed,  we  may  find  that 
the  views  of  one  age  have  rather  taken  a  backward  step  and 
fallen  below  the  original  standard.  The  progress  need  not  be 
uniform,  but  we  must  still  trace  its  course. 

5.  We  must  recognize  at  the  outset  that  Jewish  theology 
cannot  assume  the  character  of  apologetics ,  if  it  is  to  accom¬ 
plish  its  great  task  of  formulating  religious  truth  as  it  exists 
in  our  consciousness  to-day.  It  can  no  more  afford  to  ignore 
the  established  results  of  modern  linguistic,  ethnological, 
and  historical  research,  of  Biblical  criticism  and  comparative 
religion,  than  it  can  the  undisputed  facts  of  natural  science, 
however  much  any  of  these  may  conflict  with  the  Biblical 
view  of  the  cosmos.  Apologetics  has  its  legitimate  place 
to  prove  and  defend  the  truths  of  Jewish  theology  against 
other  systems  of  belief  and  thought,  but  cannot  properly 
defend  either  Biblical  or  Talmudic  statements  by  methods 
incompatible  with  scientific  investigation.  Judaism  is  a 
religion  of  historical  growth,  which,  far  from  claiming  to  be 
the  final  truth,  is  ever  regenerated  anew  at  each  turning  point 
of  history.  The  fall  of  the  leaves  at  autumn  requires  no 
apology,  for  each  successive  spring  testifies  anew  to  nature’s 
power  of  resurrection. 

The  object  of  a  systematic  theology  of  Judaism,  accord¬ 
ingly,  is  to  single  out  the  essential  forces  of  the  faith.  It 
then  will  become  evident  how  these  fundamental  doctrines 
possess  a  vitality,  a  strength  of  conviction,  as  well  as  an 
adaptability  to  varying  conditions,  which  make  them  potent 
factors  amidst  all  changes  of  time  and  circumstance.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Rabbinical  tradition,  the  broken  tablets  of  the 
covenant  were  deposited  in  the  ark  beside  the  new.  In  like 


THE  MEANING  OF  THEOLOGY 


5 


manner  the  truths  held  sacred  by  the  past,  but  found  inade¬ 
quate  in  their  expression  for  a  new  generation,  must  be  placed 
side  by  side  with  the  deeper  and  more  clarified  truths  of  an 
advanced  age,  that  they  may  appear  together  as  the  one 
divine  truth  reflected  in  different  rays  of  light. 

6.  Jewish  theology  differs  radically  from  Christian  theol¬ 
ogy  in  the  following  three  points : 

A.  The  theology  of  Christianity  deals  with  articles  of 
faith  formulated  by  the  founders  and  heads  of  the  Church 
as  conditions  of  salvation ,  so  that  any  alteration  in  favor  of 
free  thought  threatens  to  undermine  the  very  plan  of  salva¬ 
tion  upon  which  the  Church  was  founded.  Judaism  recog¬ 
nizes  only  such  articles  of  faith  as  were  adopted  by  the  people 
voluntarily  as  expressions  of  their  religious  consciousness, 
both  without  external  compulsion  and  without  doing  violence 
to  the  dictates  of  reason.  Judaism  does  not  know  salvation 
by  faith  in  the  sense  of  Paul,  the  real  founder  of  the  Church, 
who  declared  the  blind  acceptance  ..of  belief  to  be  in  itself 
meritorious.  It  denies  the  existence  of  any  irreconcilable 
opposition  between  faith  and  reason. 

B.  Christian  theology  rests  upon  a  formula  of  confession , 
the  so-called  Symbolum  of  the  Apostolic  Church,1  which 
alone  makes  one  a  Christian.  Judaism  has  no  such  formula 
of  confession  which  renders  a  Jew  a  Jew.  No  ecclesiastical 
authority  ever  dictated  or  regulated  the  belief  of  the  Jew ; 
his  faith  has  been  voiced  in  the  solemn  liturgical  form  of 
prayer,  and  has  ever  retained  its  freshness  and  vigor  of  thought 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  people.  This  partly  accounts  for 
the  antipathy  toward  any  kind  of  dogma  or  creed  among 
Jews. 


2 


C.  The  creed  is  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  the  Christian 
Church.  To  disbelieve  its  dogmas  is  to  cut  oneself  loose 
from  membership.  Judaism  is  quite  different.  The  Jew  is 


1  See  Schaff-Herzog’s  Encycl.,  art.  Apostles’  Creed  and  Symbol. 


6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


born  into  it  and  cannot  extricate  himself  from  it  even  by 
the  renunciation  of  his  faith,  which  would  but  render  him  an 
apostate  Jew.  This  condition  exists,  because  the  racial  com¬ 
munity  formed,  and  still  forms,  the  basis  of  the  religious  com¬ 
munity.  It  is  birth,  not  confession,  that  imposes  on  the  Jew 
the  obligation  to  work  and  strive  for  the  eternal  verities  of 
Israel,  for  the  preservation  and  propagation  of  which  he  has 
been  chosen  by  the  God  of  history. 

7.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  the  aim  and  end  of 
Judaism  is  not  so  much  the  salvation  of  the  soul  in  the  here¬ 
after  as  the  salvation  of  humanity  in  history.  Its  theology, 
therefore,  must  recognize  the  history  of  human  progress,  with 
which  it  is  so  closely  interwoven.  It  does  not,  therefore, 
claim  to  offer  the  final  or  absolute  truth,  as  does  Christian 
theology,  whether  orthodox  or  liberal.  It  simply  points  out 
the  way  leading  to  the  highest  obtainable  truth.  Final  and 
perfect  truth  is  held  forth  as  the  ideal  of  all  human  searching 
and  striving,  together  with  perfect  justice,  righteousness, 
and  peace,  to  be  attained  as  the  very  end  of  history. 

A  systematic  theology  of  Judaism  must,  accordingly,  con¬ 
tent  itself  with  presenting  Jewish  doctrine  and  belief  in  re¬ 
lation  to  the  most  advanced  scientific  and  philosophical  ideas 
of  the  age,  so  as  to  offer  a  comprehensive  view  of  life  and  the 
world  (“Lebens-  und  Weltanschauung”) ;  but  it  by  no  means 
claims  for  them  the  character  of  finality.  The  unfolding  of 
Judaism’s  truths  will  be  completed  only  when  all  mankind 
has  attained  the  heights  of  Zion’s  mount  of  vision,  as  beheld 
by  the  prophets  of  Israel.1 

1  See  Schechter :  Studies  in  Judaism ,  Intr.,  XXI-XXII ;  p.  147,  198  f. ;  Fos¬ 
ter:  The  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion ,  Chicago,  1906;  Friedr.  Delitzsch : 
Zur  W eiterentwicklung  der  Religion ,  1908 ;  and  comp.  Orelli :  Religions geschichte, 
276  f.,  and  Dorner:  Beitr.  z.  W eiterentwicklung  d.  christl.  Religion,  173. 


1 


CHAPTER  II 

What  is  Judaism? 

i.  It  is  very  difficult  to  give  an  exact  definition  of  Judaism 
because  of  its  peculiarly  complex  character.1  It  combines 
two  widely  differing  elements,  and  when  they  are  brought 
out  separately,  the  aspect  of  the  whole  is  not  taken  sufficiently 
into  account.  Religion  and  race  form  an  inseparable  whole 
in  Judaism.  The  Jewish  people  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
Judaism  as  the  body  to  the  soul.  The  national  or  racial  body 
of  Judaism  consists  of  the  remnant  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
which  succeeded  in  establishing  a  new  commonwealth  in 
Judaea  in  place  of  the  ancient  Israelitish  kingdom,  and  which 
survived  the  downfall  of  state  and  temple  to  continue  its 
existence  as  a  separate  people  during  a  dispersion  over  the 
globe  for  thousands  of  years,  forming  ever  a  cosmopolitan  ele¬ 
ment  among  all  the  nations  in  whose  lands  it  dwelt.  Juda¬ 
ism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  religious  system  itself,  the  vital 
element  which  united  the  Jewish  people,  preserving  it  and 
regenerating  it  ever  anew.  It  is  the  spirit  which  endowed 
the  handful  of  Jews  with  a  power  of  resistance  and  a  fervor 
of  faith  unparalleled  in  history,  enabling  them  to  persevere 

1  For  the  origin  of  the  name  Judaism,  see  Esther  VIII,  17.  Compare 
Yahduth,  Esther  Rabbah  III,  7;  II  Macc.  II,  21;  VIII,  1,  14,  38;  Graetz :  G. 
d.  J.,  II,  174  f. ;  Jost :  G.  d.  Jud.}  I,  1-12 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Judaism.  Regarding  the 
unfairness  of  Christian  authors  in  their  estimate  of  Judaism,  see  Schechter,  1.  c., 
232-251 ;  M.  Schreiner  :  D.jnengst.  Urthsile  u.  d.  Judenthum ,  p.  48-58.  Dubnow, 
Asher  Ginzberg  and  the  rest  of  the  nationalists  underrate  the  religious  power 
of  the  Jew’s  soul,  which  forms  the  essence  of  his  character  and  the  motive 
power  of  all  his  aspirations  and  hopes,  as  well  as  of  all  his  achievements  in 
history. 

7 


J 


8 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


in  the  mighty  contest  with  heathenism  and  Christianity.  It 
made  of  them  a  nation  of  martyrs  and  thinkers,  suffering  and 
struggling  for  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice,  yet  forming, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  a  potent  factor  in  all  the  great 
intellectual  movements  which  are  ultimately  to  win  the  entire 
gentile  world  for  the  purest  and  loftiest  truths  concerning 
God  and  man. 

2.  Judaism,  accordingly,  does  not  denote  the  Jewish 
nationality,  with  its  political  and  cultural  achievements 
and  aspirations,  as  those  who  have  lost  faith  in  the  religious 
mission  of  Israel  would  have  it.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
not  a  nomistic  or  legalistic  religion  confined  to  the  Jewish 
people,  as  is  maintained  by  Christian  writers,  who,  lacking 
a  full  appreciation  of  its  lofty  world-wide  purpose  and  its 
cosmopolitan  and  humanitarian  character,  claim  that  it  has 
surrendered  its  universal  prophetic  truths  to  Christianity. 
Nor  should  it  be  presented  as  a  religion  of  pure  Theism , 
aiming  to  unite  all  believers  in  one  God  into  a  Church  Uni¬ 
versal,  of  which  certain  visionaries  dream.  Judaism  is  noth¬ 
ing  less  than  a  message  concerning  the  One  and  holy  God  and 
one ,  undivided  humanity  with  a  world-uniting  Messianic  goal , 
a  message  intrusted  by  divine  revelation  to  the  Jewish  people. 
Thus  Israel  is  its  prophetic  harbinger  and  priestly  guardian, 
its  witness  and  defender  throughout  the  ages,  who  is  never 
to  falter  in  the  task  of  upholding  and  unfolding  its  truths  until 
they  have  become  the  possession  of  the  whole  human  race. 

3.  Owing  to  this  twofold  nature  of  a  universal  religious 
truth  and  at  the  same  time  a  mission  intrusted  to  a  specially 
selected  nation  or  race,  Judaism  offers  in  a  sense  the  sharpest 
contrasts  imaginable,  which  render  it  an  enigma  to  the  student 
of  religion  and  history,  and  make  him  often  incapable  of 
impartial  judgment.  On  the  one  hand,  it  shows  the  most 
tenacious  adherence  to  forms  originally  intended  to  preserve 
the  Jewish  people  in  its  priestly  sanctity  and  separateness, 


WHAT  IS  JUDAISM? 


9 


and  thereby  also  to  keep  its  religious  truths  pure  and  free 
from  encroachments.  On  the  other  hand,  it  manifests  a 
mighty  impulse  to  come  into  close  touch  with  the  various 
civilized  nations,  partly  in  order  to  disseminate  among  them 
its  sublime  truths,  appealing  alike  to  mind  and  heart,  partly 
to  clarify  and  deepen  those  truths  by  assimilating  the  wisdom 
and  culture  of  these  very  nations.  Thus  the  spirit  of  sep¬ 
aratism  and  of  universalism  work  in  opposite  directions. 
Still,  however  hostile  the  two  elements  may  appear,  they 
emanate  from  the  same  source.  For  the  Jewish  people, 
unlike  any  other  civilization  of  antiquity,  entered  history 
with  the  proud  claim  that  it  possessed  a  truth  destined  to 
become  some  day  the  property  of  mankind,  and  its  three 
thousand  years  of  history  have  verified  this  claim. 

Israel’s  relation  to  the  world  thus  became  a  double  one. 
Its  priestly  world-mission  gave  rise  to  all  those  laws  and 
customs  which  were  to  separate  it  from  its  idolatrous  surround¬ 
ings,  and  this  occasioned  the  charge  of  hostility  to  the  nations. 
The  accusation  of  Jewish  misanthropy  occurred  as  early  as 
the  Balaam  and  Haman  stories.  As  the  separation  continued 
through  the  centuries,  a  deep-seated  Jew-hatred  sprang  up, 
first  in  Alexandria  and  Rome,  then  becoming  a  consuming 
fire  throughout  Christendom,  unquenched  through  the  ages 
and  bursting  forth  anew,  even  from  the  midst  of  would-be 
liberals.  In  contrast  to  this,  Israel’s  prophetic  ideal  of  a 
humanity  united  in  justice  and  peace  gave  to  history  a  new 
meaning  and  a  larger  outlook,  kindling  in  the  souls  of  all 
truly  great  leaders  and  teachers,  seers  and  sages  of  mankind 
a  love  and  longing  for  the  broadening  of  humanity  which 
opened  new  avenues  of  progress  and  liberty.  Moreover,  by 
its  conception  of  man  as  the  image  of  God  and  its  teaching 
of  righteousness  as  the  true  path  of  life,  Israel’s  Law  estab¬ 
lished  a  new  standard  of  human  worth  and  put  the  imprint 
of  Jewish  idealism  upon  the  entire  Aryan  civilization. 


IO 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Owing  to  these  two  opposing  forces,  the  one  centripetal, 
the  other  centrifugal,  Judaism  tended  now  inward,  away  from 
world-culture,  now  outward  toward  the  learning  and  the 
thought  of  all  nations;  and  this  makes  it  doubly  difficult 
to  obtain  a  true  estimate  of  its  character.  But,  after  all, 
these  very  currents  and  counter-currents  at  the  different 
eras  of  history  kept  Judaism  in  continuous  tension  and  fluc¬ 
tuation,  preventing  its  stagnation  by  dogmatic  formulas 
and  its  division  by  ecclesiastical  dissensions.  “Both  words 
are  the  words  of  the  living  God”  became  the  maxim  of  the 
contending  schools.1 

4.  If  we  now  ask  what  period  we  may  fix  as  the  beginning 
of  Judaism,  we  must  by  no  means  single  out  the  decisive 
moment  when  Ezra  the  Scribe  established  the  new  common¬ 
wealth  of  Judaea,  based  upon  the  Mosaic  book  of  Law,  and 
excluding  the  Samaritans  who  claimed  to  be  the  heirs  of 
ancient  Israel.  This  important  step  was  but  the  climax, 
the  fruitage  of  that  religious  spirit  engendered  by  the  Judaism 
of  the  Babylonian  exile.  The  Captivity  had  become  a  re¬ 
fining  furnace  for  the  people,  making  them  cling  with  a  zeal 
unknown  before  to  the  teachings  of  the  prophets,  now  offered 
by  their  disciples,  and  to  the  laws,  as  preserved  by  the  priestly 
guilds ;  so  the  religious  treasures  of  the  few  became  the  com¬ 
mon  property  of  the  many,  and  were  soon  regarded  as  “the 
inheritance  of  the  whole  congregation  of  Jacob.”  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  Ezra  represents  the  culmination  rather  than  the 
starting  point  of  the  great  spiritual  reawakening,  when  he 
came  from  Babylon  with  a  complete  Code  of  Law,  and  pro¬ 
mulgated  it  in  the  Holy  City  to  a  worshipful  congregation.2 
It  was  Judaism,  winged  with  a  new  spirit,  which  carried  the 
great  unknown  seer  of  the  Exile  to  the  very  pinnacle  of  pro¬ 
phetic  vision,  and  made  the  Psalmists  ring  forth  from  the 
harp  of  David  the  deepest  soul-stirring  notes  of  religious 
1  Erub.  13  b.  2  Neh.  VIII,  1-18;  Ez.  VII,  12-28. 


WHAT  IS  JUDAISM? 


II 


devotion  and  aspiration  that  ever  moved  the  hearts  of  men. 
Moreover,  all  the  great  truths  of  prophetic  revelation,  of  legis¬ 
lative  and  popular  wisdom,  were  then  collected  and  focused, 
creating  a  sacred  literature  which  was  to  serve  the  whole  com¬ 
munity  as  the  source  of  instruction,  consolation,  and  edifica¬ 
tion.  The  powerful  and  unique  institutions  of  the  Synagogue, 
intended  for  common  instruction  and  devotion,  are  altogether 
creations  of  the  Exile,  and  replaced  the  former  priestly  Torah  by 
the  Torah  for  the  people.  More  wonderful  still,  the  priestly  lore 
of  ancient  Babylon  was  transformed  by  sublime  monotheistic 
truths  and  utilized  in  the  formation  of  a  sacred  literature ;  it 
was  placed  before  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  to 
form,  as  it  were,  an  introduction  to  the  Bible  of  humanity. 

Judaism,  then,  far  from  being  the  late  product  of  the  Torah 
and  tradition,  as  it  is  often  considered,  was  actually  the 
creator  of  the  Law.  Transformed  and  unfolded  in  Babylonia, 
it  created  its  own  sacred  literature  and  shaped  it  ever  anew, 
filling  it  always  with  its  own  spirit  and  with  new  thoughts. 
It  is  by  no  means  the  petrifaction  of  the  Mosaic  law  and  the 
prophetic  teachings,  as  we  are  so  often  told,  but  a  continuous 
process  of  unfolding  and  regeneration  of  its  great  religious  truth. 

5.  True  enough,  traditional  or  orthodox  Judaism  does  not 
share  this  view.  The  idea  of  gradual  development  is  pre¬ 
cluded  by  its  conception  of  divine  revelation,  by  its  doctrine 
that  both  the  oral  and  the  written  Torah  were  given  at  Sinai 
complete  and  unchangeable  for  all  time.  It  makes  allowance 
only  for  special  institutions  begun  either  by  the  prophets, 
by  Ezra  and  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  his  associates, 
or  by  the  masters  of  the  Law  in  succeeding  centuries.  Never¬ 
theless,  tradition  says  that  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
themselves  collected  and  partly  completed  the  sacred  books, 
except  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  that  the  canon  was  made 
under  the  influence  of  the  holy  spirit.  This  holy  spirit  re¬ 
mained  in  force  also  during  the  creative  period  of  Talmudism, 


12 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


sanctioning  innovations  or  alterations  of  many  kinds.1  Modern 
critical  and  historical  research  has  taught  us  to  distinguish 
the  products  of  different  periods  and  stages  of  development 
in  both  the  Biblical  and  Rabbinical  sources,  and  therefore 
compels  us  to  reject  the  idea  of  a  uniform  origin  of  the  Law, 
and  also  of  an  uninterrupted  chain  of  tradition  reaching  back 
to  Moses  on  Sinai.  Therefore  we  must  attach  still  more 
importance  to  the  process  of  transformation  which  Judaism 
had  to  undergo  through  the  centuries.2 

Judaism  manifested  its  wondrous  power  of  assimilation 
by  renewing  itself  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  time,  first 
under  the  influence  of  the  ancient  civilizations,  Babylonia 
and  Persia,  then  of  Greece  and  Rome,  finally  of  the  Occidental 
powers,  molding  its  religious  truths  and  customs  in  ever  new 
forms,  but  all  in  consonance  with  its  own  genius.  It  adopted 
the  Babylonian  and  Persian  views  of  the  hereafter,  of  the  upper 
and  the  nether  world  with  their  angels  and  demons  ;  so  later 
on  it  incorporated  into  its  religious  and  legal  system  elements 
of  Greek  and  Egyptian  gnosticism,  Greek  philosophy,  and 
methods  of  jurisprudence  from  Egypt,  Babylon,  and  Rome. 
In  fact,  the  various  parties  which  arose  during  the  second 
Temple  beside  each  other  or  successively  —  Sadducees  and 
Pharisees,  Essenes  and  Zealots  —  represent,  on  closer  obser¬ 
vation,  the  different  stages  in  the  process  of  assimilation  which 
Judaism  had  to  undergo.  In  like  manner,  the  Hellenistic, 
Apocryphal  and  Apocalyptic  literature,  which  was  rejected 
and  lost  to  sight  by  traditional  Judaism,  and  which  partly 
fills  the  gap  between  the  Bible  and  the  Talmudic  writings, 
casts  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  development  of  the  Halakah 

1  See  M.  Bloch:  Tekanot,  and  art.  Tekanot  J.  E.  Regarding  inspiration 
see  J.  E. ;  Sanh.  99  a;  Meg.  7  a;  Maim. :  Moreh,  II,  45;  comp.  Yerush.  Ab. 
Zar.,  I,  40;  Horay.  Ill,  48  c;  Levit.  R.  VI,  1;  IX,  9;  and  Yoma  9  b.  The 
laying  on  of  hands  for  ordination  ( Semikah )  implied  originally  the  imparting 
of  the  holy  spirit,  see  J.  E.,  art.  Authority. 

2  See  Geiger,  J.  Z.,  I,  p.  7. 


WHAT  IS  JUDAISM? 


13 


and  the  Haggadah.  Just  as  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  which  was 
almost  excluded  from  the  Canon  on  account  of  its  divergence 
from  the  Mosaic  Law,  has  been  helpful  in  tracing  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Priestly  Code,1  so  the  Sadduceean  book  of  Ben 
Sira  2  and  the  Zealotic  book  of  Jubilees  3  —  not  to  mention 
the  various  Apocalyptic  works  —  throw  their  searchlight 
upon  pre-Talmudic  Judaism. 

6.  Instead  of  representing  Judaism  —  as  the  Christian 
theologians  do  under  the  guise  of  scientific  methods  —  as  a 
nomistic  religion,  caring  only  for  the  external  observance  of 
the  Law,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  two  opposite  funda¬ 
mental  tendencies ;  the  one  expressing  the  spirit  of  legalistic 
nationalism,  the  other  that  of  ethical  or  prophetic  universalism. 
These  two  work  by  turn,  directing  the  general  trend  in  the 
one  or  the  other  direction  according  to  circumstances.  At 
one  time  the  center  and  focus  of  Israel’s  religion  is  the  Mosaic 
Law,  with  its  sacrificial  cult  in  charge  of  the  priesthood  of 
Jerusalem’s  Temple;  at  another  time  it  is  the  Synagogue, 
with  its  congregational  devotion  and  public  instruction,  its 
inspiring  song  of  the  Psalmist  and  its  prophetic  consolation 
and  hope  confined  to  no  narrow  territory,  but  opened  wide 
for  a  listening  world.  Here  it  is  the  reign  of  the  Halakah 
holding  fast  to  the  form  of  tradition,  and  there  the  free  and 
fanciful  Haggadah ,  with  its  appeal  to  the  sentiments  and 
views  of  the  people.  Here  it  is  the  spirit  of  ritualism ,  bent 
on  separating  the  Jews  from  the  influence  of  foreign  elements, 
and  there  again  the  spirit  of  rationalism ,  eager  to  take  part 
in  general  culture  and  in  the  progress  of  the  outside  world. 

The  liberal  views  of  Maimonides  and  Gersonides  concern- 

1  Aboth  d.  R.  Nathan,  I ;  Shab.  30  b  with  reference  to  Ezek.  XLIII-XLIV. 

2  See  Geiger :  Z.  D.  M.  G.,  XII,  536 ;  Schechter,  Wisdom  of  Ben  Sira,  p.  35. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Jubilees,  Book  of.  Very  instructive  in  this  connection  is 
a  comparative  study  of  the  Falashas,  the  Samaritans,  especially  the  Dosithean 
sect,  and  the  still  problematical  sect  discovered  through  the  document  found 
by  Schechter,  edited  by  him  under  the  title  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  Sect. 


i 


14 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


ing  miracle  and  revelation,  God  and  immortality  were  scarcely 
shared  by  the  majority  of  Jews,  who,  no  doubt,  sided  rather 
with  the  mystics,  and  found  their  mouthpiece  in  Abraham 
ben  David  of  Posquieres,  the  fierce  opponent  of  Maimonides. 
An  impartial  Jewish  theology  must  therefore  take  cognizance 
of  both  sides ;  it  must  include  the  mysticism  of  Isaac  Luria 
and  Sabbathai  Horwitz  as  well  as  the  rationalism  of  Albo  and 
Leo  da  Modena.  Wherever  is  voiced  a  new  doctrine  or  a 
new  view  of  life  and  life’s  duty,  which  yet  bears  the  imprint 
of  the  Jewish  consciousness,  there  the  well-spring  of  divine 
inspiration  is  seen  pouring  forth  its  living  waters. 

7.  Even  the  latest  interpretation  of  the  Law,  offered  by 
a  disciple  who  is  recognized  for  true  conscientiousness  in 
religion,  was  revealed  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  according  to  a 
Rabbinical  dictum.1  Thus  is  exquisitely  expressed  the  idea 
of  a  continuous  development  of  Israel’s  religious  truth.  As  a 
safeguard  against  arbitrary  individualism,  there  was  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  loyalty  and  proper  regard  for  tradition,  which  is  aptly 
termed  by  Professor  Lazarus  a  “ historical  continuity.” 2  The 
Midrashic  statement  is  quite  significant  that  other  creeds 
founded  on  our  Bible  can  only  adhere  to  the  letter,  but  the 
Jewish  religion  possesses  the  key  to  the  deeper  meaning  hidden 
and  presented  in  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures.3  That  is,  for  Judaism  Holy  Scripture  in  its  literal  sense 
is  not  the  final  word  of  God ;  the  Bible  is  rather  a  living  spring 
of  divine  revelation,  to  be  kept  ever  fresh  and  flowing  by  the 
active  force  of  the  spirit.  To  sum  up :  Judaism,  far  from 
offering  a  system  of  beliefs  and  ceremonies  fixed  for  all  time, 
is  as  multifarious  and  manifold  in  its  aspects  as  is  life  itself. 
It  comprises  all  phases  and  characteristics  of  both  a  national 
and  a  world  religion. 

1  See  Yer.  Hag.,  I,  76,  and  elsewhere. 

2  Ethics  of  Judaism,  I,  8-10;  Geiger :  J.  Z.,  IX,  263. 

3  See  Pesik.  R.,  V,  p.  146;  Midr.  Tanhuma ,  ed.  Buber,  Wayera  6  and  Ki 
Thissa.  17.  Comp,  the  legend  of  Moses  and  Akiba,  Men.  29  b. 


CHAPTER  III 


The  Essence  of  the  Religion  of  Judaism 

i.  We  have  seen  how  difficult  it  is  to  define  Judaism  clearly 
and  adequately,  including  its  manifold  tendencies  and  insti¬ 
tutions.  Still  it  is  necessary  that  we  reach  a  full  under¬ 
standing  of  the  essence  of  Judaism  as  it  manifested  itself  in 
all  periods  of  its  history,1  and  that  we  single  out  the  funda¬ 
mental  idea  which  underlies  its  various  forms  of  existence 
and  its  different  movements,  both  intellectual  and  spiritual. 
There  can  be  no  disputing  the  fact  that  the  central  idea  of 
Judaism  and  its  life  purpose  is  the  doctrine  of  the  One  Only 
and  Holy  God,  whose  kingdom  of  truth,  justice  and  peace 
is  to  be  universally  established  at  the  end  of  time.  This  is 
the  main  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the  hope  voiced  in  the 
liturgy;  while  Israel’s  mission  to  defend,  to  unfold  and  to 
propagate  this  truth  is  a  corollary  of  the  doctrine  itself  and 
cannot  be  separated  from  it.  Whether  we  regard  it  as  Law 
or  a  system  of  doctrine,  as  religious  truth  or  world-mission, 
this  belief  pledged  the  little  tribe  of  Judah  to  a  warfare  of 
many  thousands  of  years  against  the  hordes  of  heathendom 
with  all  their  idolatry  and  brutality,  their  deification  of  man 
and  their  degradation  of  deity  to  human  rank.  It  betokened 
a  battle  for  the  pure  idea  of  God  and  man,  which  is  not  to 
end  until  the  principle  of  divine  holiness  has  done  away  with 
every  form  of  life  that  tends  to  degrade  and  to  disunite  man¬ 
kind,  and  until  Israel’s  Only  One  has  become  the  unifying 
power  and  the  highest  ideal  of  all  humanity. 

1  Comp.  Geiger:  Nachgel.  Schr 11,37-41;  also  his  Jud.  u.  s.  Gesch ., 
I,  20-35;  Beck:  D.  Wesen  d.  Judenthums;  Eschelbacher :  D.  Judenthum  u.  d. 
Wesen  d.  Christenthums ;  Schreiner,  1.  c.,  26-34. 

IS 


i6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


2.  Of  this  great  world-duty  of  Israel  only  the  few  will 
ever  become  fully  conscious.  As  in  the  days  of  the  prophets, 
so  in  later  periods,  only  a  “small  remnant’’  was  fully  imbued 
with  the  lofty  ideal.  In  times  of  oppression  the  great  mul¬ 
titude  of  the  people  persisted  in  a  conscientious  observance 
of  the  Law  and  underwent  suffering  without  a  murmur.  Yet 
in  times  of  liberty  and  enlightenment  this  same  majority 
often  neglects  to  assimilate  the  new  culture  to  its  own  superior 
spirit,  but  instead  eagerly  assimilates  itself  to  the  surrounding 
world,  and  thereby  loses  much  of  its  intrinsic  strength  and 
self-respect.  The  pendulum  of  thought  and  sentiment  swings 
to  and  fro  between  the  national  and  the  universal  ideals, 
while  only  a  few  maturer  minds  have  a  clear  vision  of  the 
goal  as  it  is  to  be  reached  along  both  lines  of  development. 
Nevertheless,  Judaism  is  in  a  true  sense  a  religion  of  the 
people.  It  is  free  from  all  priestly  tutelage  and  hierarchical 
interference.  It  has  no  ecclesiastical  system  of  belief,  guarded 
and  supervised  by  men  invested  with  superior  powers.  Its 
teachers  and  leaders  have  always  been  men  from  among  the 
people,  like  the  prophets  of  yore,  with  no  sacerdotal  privilege 
or  title ;  in  fact,  in  his  own  household  each  father  is  the  God- 
appointed  teacher  of  his  children.1 

3.  Neither  is  Judaism  the  creation  of  a  single  person, 
either  prophet  or  a  man  with  divine  claims.  It  points  back 
to  the  patriarchs  as  its  first  source  of  revelation.  It  speaks 
not  of  the  God  of  Moses,  of  Amos  and  Isaiah,  but  of  the  God 
of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  thereby  declaring  the  Jewish 
genius  to  be  the  creator  of  its  own  religious  ideas.  It  is  there¬ 
fore  incorrect  to  speak  of  a  “Mosaic,”  “Hebrew,”  or  “Israel- 
itish,”  religion.  The  name  Judaism  alone  expresses  the  pres¬ 
ervation  of  the  religious  heritage  of  Israel  by  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
with  a  loyalty  which  was  first  displayed  by  Judah  himself 
in  the  patriarchal  household,  and  which  became  its  char- 

1  Deut.  VI,  7 ;  XI,  19. 


THE  ESSENCE  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  JUDAISM  17 


acteristic  virtue  in  the  history  of  the  various  tribes.  Like¬ 
wise  the  rigid  measures  of  Ezra  in  expelling  all  foreign 
elements  from  the  new  commonwealth  proved  instrumental 
in  impressing  loyalty  and  piety  upon  Jewish  family  life. 

4.  As  it  was  bound  up  with  the  life  of  the  Jewish  people, 
Judaism  remained  forever  in  close  touch  with  the  world. 
Therefore  it  appreciated  adequately  the  boons  of  life,  and 
escaped  being  reduced  to  the  shadowy  form  of  “otherworld¬ 
liness.”  1  It  is  a  religion  of  life ,  which  it  wishes  to  sanctify 
by  duty  rather  than  by  laying  stress  on  the  hereafter.  It 
looks  to  the  deed  and  the  purity  of  the  motive,  not  to  the  empty 
creed  and  the  blind  belief.  Nor  is  it  a  religion  of  redemption, 
contemning  this  earthly  life ;  for  Judaism  repudiates  the 
assumption  of  a  radical  power  of  evil  in  man  or  in  the  world. 
Faith  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  good  is  essential  to  it. 
In  fact,  this  perfect  confidence  in  the  final  victory  of  truth 
and  justice  over  all  the  powers  of  falsehood  and  wrong  lent 
it  both  its  wondrous  intellectual  force  and  its  high  idealism, 
and  adorned  its  adherents  with  the  martyr’s  crown  of  thorns, 
such  as  no  other  human  brow  has  ever  borne. 

5.  Christianity  and  Islam,  notwithstanding  their  alienation 
from  Judaism  and  frequent  hostility,  are  still  daughter-reli¬ 
gions.  In  so  far  as  they  have  sown  the  seeds  of  Jewish  truth 
over  all  the  globe  and  have  done  their  share  in  upbuilding  the 
Kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  they  must  be  recognized  as  divinely 
appointed  emissaries  and  agencies.  Still  Judaism  sets  forth 
its  doctrine  of  God’s  unity  and  of  life’s  holiness  in  a  far  superior 
form  than  does  Christianity.  It  neither  permits  the  deity 
to  be  degraded  into  the  sphere  of  the  sensual  and  human, 
nor  does  it  base  its  morality  upon  a  love  bereft  of  the  vital 
principle  of  justice.  Against  the  rigid  monotheism  of  Islam, 
which  demands  blind  submission  to  the  stern  decrees  of 
inexorable  fate,  Judaism  on  the  other  hand  urges  its  belief 


1 


1  See  Geiger :  Nachgel.  Schr.,  II,  37  f. 


c 


i8 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


in  God’s  paternal  love  and  mercy,  which  educates  all  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  men,  through  trial  and  suffering,  for  their  high  destiny. 

6.  Judaism  denies  most  emphatically  the  right  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  or  any  other  religion  to  arrogate  to  itself  the  title  of 
“the  absolute  religion”  or  to  claim  to  be  “the  finest  blossom 
and  the  ripest  fruit  of  religious  development.”  As  if  any 
mortal  man  at  any  time  or  under  any  condition  could  say  with¬ 
out  presumption  :  “I  am  the  Truth”  or  “No  one  cometh  unto 
the  Father  but  by  me.”  1  “When  man  was  to  proceed  from 
the  hands  of  his  Maker,”  says  the  Midrash,  “the  Holy  One, 
Blessed  be  His  name,  cast  truth  down  to  the  earth,  saying, 
Met  truth  spring  forth  from  the  earth,  and  righteousness 
look  down  from  heaven.’”2  The  full  unfolding  of  the  reli¬ 
gious  and  moral  life  of  mankind  is  the  work  of  countless  gen¬ 
erations  yet  to  come,  and  many  divine  heralds  of  truth  and 
righteousness  have  yet  to  contribute  their  share.  In  this 
work  of  untold  ages,  Judaism  claims  that  it  has  achieved 
and  is  still  achieving  its  full  part  as  the  prophetic  world- 
religion.  Its  law  of  righteousness,  which  takes  for  its  scope 
the  whole  of  human  life,  in  its  political  and  social  relations 
as  well  as  its  personal  aspects,  forms  the  foundation  of  its 
ethics  for  all  time ;  while  its  hope  for  a  future  realization  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  has  actually  become  the  aim  of  human 
history.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  when  the  true  object  of  religion 
is  the  hallowing  of  life  rather  than  the  salvation  of  the  soul, 
there  is  little  room  left  for  sectarian  exclusiveness,  or  for  a 
heaven  for  believers  and  a  hell  for  unbelievers.  With  this 
broad  outlook  upon  life,  Judaism  lays  claim,  not  to  perfec¬ 
tion,  but  to  perfectibility ;  it  has  supreme  capacity  for  grow¬ 
ing  toward  the  highest  ideals  of  mankind,  as  beheld  by  the 
prophets  in  their  Messianic  visions. 

1  John  XIV,  6.  Comp.  Dorner,  1.  c.,  173;  and  his  Grundprobleme  d.  Re¬ 
ligions  philo sophie;  Orelli:  Religions gesckichte,  276  f. 

2  Gen.  R.  VIII,  5. 


CHAPTER  IV 


The  Jewish  Articles  of  Faith 

i.  In  order  to  reach  a  clear  opinion,  whether  or  not  Judaism 
has  articles  of  faith  in  the  sense  of  Church  dogmas,  a  question 
so  much  discussed  since  the  days  of  Moses  Mendelssohn,  it 
seems  necessary  first  to  ascertain  what  faith  in  general  means 
to  the  Jew.1  Now  the  word  used  in  Jewish  literature  for 
faith  is  Emunah ,  from  the  root  Aman,  to  be  firm  ;  this  denotes 
firm  reliance  upon  God,  and  likewise  firm  adherence  to  him, 
hence  both  faith  and  faithfulness.  Both  Scripture  and  the 
Rabbis  demanded  confiding  trust  in  God,  His  messengers,  and 
His  words,  not  the  formal  acceptance  of  a  prescribed  belief.2 
Only  when  contact  with  the  non- Jewish  world  emphasized 
the  need  for  a  clear  expression  of  the  belief  in  the  unity  of 
God,  such  as  was  found  in  the  Shema,3  and  when  the  proselyte 
was  expected  to  declare  in  some  definite  form  the  fundamentals 
of  the  faith  he  espoused,  was  the  importance  of  a  concrete 
confession  felt.4  Accordingly  we  find  the  beginnings  of  a 
formulated  belief  in  the  synagogal  liturgy,  in  the  Emeth  we 

1  See  Schechter  :  Studies ,  147-181  and  notes  351  f. ;  Mendelssohn  :  Ges.  Schr., 
III,32i.  Comp.  Schlesinger  :  Buck  Ikkarim,  630-632  ;  Bousset:  Religion  d. 
Judenthums ,  170  f.,  175,  and  thereto  Perles :  Bousset ,  112  f. ;  Martin  Schreiner  : 
1.  c.,  35  f. ;  J.  E.,  art.  Faith  and  Articles  of  Faith  (E.  G.  Hirsch) ;  Felsenthal, 
Margolis,  and  Kohler,  in  Y.  B.  C.  C.  A.  R.,  1897,  p.  54;  1903,  p.  188-193; 
1905,  p.  83;  Neumark :  art.  Ikkarim  in  Ozar  ha  Yahduth;  D.  Fr.  Strauss: 
D.  christl.  Glaubenslehre,  I,  25. 

2  See  Gen.  XV,  6;  Mek.  to  Ex.  XIV ;  J.  E.,  art.  Faith. 

3  Deut.  VI,  1-6;  XI,  13-21;  Num.  XV,  37-41. 

4  See  Bousset,  II,  224  f.  The  term  Pistis  =  faith,  assumes  a  new  meaning 
in  Hellenistic  literature. 

19 


l 


20 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Yatzib  1  and  the  Alenu ,2  while  in  the  Haggadah  Abraham 
is  represented  both  as  the  exemplar  of  a  hero  of  faith  and  as 
the  type  of  a  missionary,  wandering  about  to  lead  the  heathen 
world  towards  the  pure  monotheistic  faith.3  While  the 
Jewish  concept  of  faith  underwent  a  certain  transformation, 
influenced  by  other  systems  of  belief,  and  the  formulation  of 
Jewish  doctrines  appeared  necessary,  particularly  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan  creeds,  still  belief 
never  became  the  essential  part  of  religion,  conditioning  sal¬ 
vation,  as  in  the  Church  founded  by  Paul.  For,  as  pointed 
out  above,  Judaism  lays  all  stress  upon  conduct,  not  confession ; 
upon  a  hallowed  life,  not  a  hollow  creed. 

2.  There  is  no  Biblical  nor  Rabbinical  precept,  “Thou 
shalt  believe!”  Jewish  thinkers  felt  all  the  more  the  need 
to  point  out  as  fundamentals  or  roots  of  Judaism  those  doc¬ 
trines  upon  which  it  rests,  and  from  which  it  derives  its  vital 
force.  To  the  rabbis,  the  “  root  ”  of  faith  is  the  recognition 
of  a  divine  Judge  to  whom  we  owe  account  for  all  our  doings.4 
The  recital  of  the  Shema,  which  is  called  in  the  Mishnah 
“accepting  the  yoke  of  God’s  sovereignty,”  and  which  is 
followed  by  the  solemn  affirmation,  “True  and  firm  belief 
is  this  for  us”  5  (. Emeth  we  Yatzib  or  Emeth  we  Emunah ),  is, 
in  fact,  the  earliest  form  of  the  confession  of  faith.6  In  the 
course  of  time  this  confession  of  belief  in  the  unity  of  God 
was  no  longer  deemed  sufficient  to  serve  as  basis  for  the  whole 
structure  of  Judaism;  so  the  various  schools  and  authorities 
endeavored  to  work  out  in  detail  a  series  of  fundamental 
doctrines. 

3.  The  Mishnah,  in  Sanhedrin,  X,  1,  which  seems  to  date 
back  to  the  beginnings  of  Pharisaism,  declares  the  following 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Emeth  we  Yatzib.  2  See  J.  E.,  art.  Alenu. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Abraham  in  Apocryphical  and  Rabbinical  Lit. 

4  Sifra  Behukothai,  III,  6 ;  Sank.  38  b ;  Targ.  Y.  to  Gen.  IV,  8. 

6  Ber.  II,  2 ;  see  Kohler  :  M onatschrift,  1883,  p.  445.  8  Kohler,  1.  c. 


THE  JEWISH  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH 


21 


three  to  have  no  share  in  the  world  to  come :  he  who  denies 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead ;  he  who  says  that  the  Torah  — 
both  the  written  and  the  oral  Law  —  is  not  divinely  revealed ; 
and  the  Epicurean,  who  does  not  believe  in  the  moral  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  world.1  We  find  here  (in  reverse  order,  owing 
to  historical  conditions),  the  beliefs  in  Revelation,  Retribu¬ 
tion,  and  the  Hereafter  singled  out  as  the  three  fundamentals 
of  Rabbinical  Judaism.  Rabbi  Hananel,  the  great  North 
African  Talmudist,  about  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century, 
seems  to  have  been  under  the  influence  of  Mohammedan  and 
Karaite  doctrines,  when  he  speaks  of  four  fundamentals  of 
the  faith :  God,  the  prophets,  the  future  reward  and  punish¬ 
ment,  and  the  Messiah.2 

4.  The  doctrine  of  the  One  and  Only  God  stands,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  in  the  foreground.  Philo  of  Alexandria, 
at  the  end  of  his  treatise  on  Creation,  singles  out  five  prin¬ 
ciples  which  are  bound  up  with  it,  viz. :  1,  God’s  existence 
and  His  government  of  the  world ;  2,  His  unity;  3,  the  world 
as  His  creation ;  4,  the  harmonious  plan  by  which  it  was 
established ;  and  5,  His  Providence.  Josephus,  too,  in  his 
apology  for  Judaism  written  against  Apion,3  emphasizes  the 
belief  in  God’s  all-encompassing  Providence,  His  incorporeal¬ 
ity,  and  His  self-sufficiency  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe. 


1  The  Mishnaic  Apicoros  corresponded  to  the  Greek,  Epicoureios,  and  was 
no  longer  understood  by  the  Talmudists ;  see  Schechter :  Studies  in  Judaism,  I, 
157.  It  is  defined  by  Josephus  :  Antiquities,  X,  n,  7  :  “The  Epicureans  .  .  . 
are  in  a  state  of  error,  who  cast  Providence  out  of  life,  and  do  not  believe  that 
God  takes  care  of  the  affairs  of  the  world,  nor  that  the  universe  is  governed  by 
a  Being  which  outlives  all  things  in  everlasting  self-sufficiency  and  bliss,  but  de¬ 
clare  it  to  be  self-sustaining  and  void  of  a  ruler  and  protector  .  .  .  like  a  ship 
without  a  helmsman  and  like  a  chariot  without  a  driver.’’  Comp,  also  Oppen- 
heim  in  Monatschr.,  1864,  p.  149. 

2  See  Rappaport:  “Biography  of  R.  Hananel,”  in  Bikkure  ha  I  Him, 
1842. 

3  Contra  Apionem,  II,  22.  See  J.  G.  Mueller :  Josephus’  Schrift  gegen  Apion, 

311-313- 


22 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


The  example  of  Islam,  which  had  very  early  formulated  a 
confession  of  faith  of  speculative  character  for  daily  recitation,2 
influenced  first  Karaite  and  then  Rabbanite  teachers  to  elab¬ 
orate  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  One  Only  God  into  a  philosophic 
creed.  The  Karaites  modeled  their  creed  after  the  Moham¬ 
medan  pattern,  which  gave  them  ten  articles  of  faith ;  of  these 
the  first  three  dwelt  on:  i,  creation  out  of  nothing;  2,  the 
existence  of  God,  the  Creator;  3,  the  unity  and  incorpo¬ 
reality  of  God.2 

Abraham  ben  David  ( Ibn  Baud)  of  Toledo  sets  forth  in 
his  “ Sublime  Faith”  six  essentials  of  the  Jewish  faith:  1,  the 
existence;  2,  the  unity;  3,  the  incorporeality;  4,  the  omnip¬ 
otence  of  God  (to  this  he  subjoins  the  existence  of  angelic 
beings) ;  5,  revelation  and  the  immutability  of  the  Law ; 
and  6,  divine  Providence.3  Maimonides,  the  greatest  of  all 
medieval  thinkers,  propounded  thirteen  articles  of  faith, 
which  took  the  place  of  a  creed  in  the  Synagogue  for  the  fol¬ 
lowing  centuries,  as  they  were  incorporated  in  the  liturgy 
both  in  the  form  of  a  credo  (Ani  Maamin)  and  in  a  poetic 
version.  His  first  five  articles  were:  1,  the  existence;  2,  the 
unity;  3,  the  incorporeality;  4,  the  eternity  of  God;  and 
5,  that  He  alone  should  be  the  object  of  worship ;  to  which 
we  must  add  his  10th,  divine  Providence.4  Others,  not 
satisfied  with  the  purely  metaphysical  form  of  the  Maimoni- 
dean  creed,  accentuated  the  doctrines  of  creation  out  of  nothing 
and  special  Providence.5 

1  See  Alfred  v.  Kremer :  Gesch.  d.  hersch.  Ideen  d.  Islam,  39-41 ;  Goldziher, 
D.  M.  L.  Z.,  XLIV,  p.  168  f. ;  XLI,  p.  72  f.,  which  passages  cast  much  light 
upon  the  Jewish  Ani  Maamin. 

2  See  Jost :  Gesch.  d.  Jud.,  II,  330  f. ;  Frankl :  art.  Karaites  in  Ersch  und  Gru¬ 
ber’s  Encyclopaedic ;  Loew:  Juedische  Dogmen,  Ges.  s.  I,  154;  Schechter,  1.  c. 

3  J.  Guttman:  D.  Religions phil:  v.  Abraham  Ibn  Daud;  David  Kaufmann, 
Gesch.  d.  Attributenlehre;  Neumark :  Gesch.  d.  juedisch.  Phil.  vols.  I  and  II. 

4  Maimonides :  Commentary  on  Mishnah,  Sanh.,  X,  1 ;  Schechter,  1.  c., 
163;  Holzer:  Gesch.  d.  Dogmenlehre,  Berlin,  1901. 

5  See  Loew,  1.  c.,  156;  Schechter,  1.  c.,  165. 


THE  JEWISH  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH 


23 


This  speculative  form  of  faith,  however,  has  been  most 
severely  denounced  by  Samuel  David  Luzzatto  (1800-1865)  as 
“Atticism”1;  that  is,  the  Hellenistic  or  philosophic  tendency 
to  consider  religion  as  a  purely  intellectual  system,  instead  of 
the  great  dynamic  force  for  man’s  moral  and  spiritual  eleva¬ 
tion.  He  holds  that  Judaism,  as  the  faith  transmitted  to  us 
from  Abraham,  our  ancestor,  must  be  considered,  not  as  a 
mere  speculative  mode  of  reasoning,  but  as  a  moral  life  force, 
manifested  in  the  practice  of  righteousness  and  brotherly 
love.  Indeed,  this  view  is  supported  by  modern  Biblical  re¬ 
search,  which  brings  out  as  the  salient  point  in  Biblical  teach¬ 
ing  the  ethical  character  of  the  God  taught  by  the  prophets, 
and  shows  that  the  essential  truth  of  revelation  is  not  to  be 
found  in  a  metaphysical  but  in  an  ethical  monotheism.  At 
the  same  time,  the  fact  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the 
Jewish  doctrine  of  God’s  unity  was  strengthened  in  the  con¬ 
test  with  the  dualistic  and  trinitarian  beliefs  of  other  religions, 
and  that  this  unity  gave  Jewish  thought  both  lucidity  and 
sublimity,  so  that  it  has  surpassed  other  faiths  in  intellectual 
power  and  in  passion  for  truth.  The  Jewish  conception  of 
God  thus  makes  truth ,  as  well  as  righteousness  and  love ,  both 
a  moral  duty  for  man  and  a  historical  task  comprising  all 
humanity. 

5.  The  second  fundamental  article  of  the  Jewish  faith  is 
divine  revelation,  or,  as  the  Mishnah  expresses  it,  the  belief 
that  the  Torah  emanates  from  God  {min  ha  shamayim).  In 
the  Maimonidean  thirteen  articles,  this  is  divided  into  four : 
his  6th,  belief  in  the  prophets ;  7,  in  the  prophecy  of  Moses 
as  the  greatest  of  all ;  8,  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Torah, 
both  the  written  and  the  oral  Law ;  and  9,  its  immutability. 
The  fundamental  character  of  these,  however,  was  contested 

1See  P.  Bloch:  “Luzzatto  als  R.eligionsphilosoph ”  in  Samuel  David  Luz¬ 
zatto ,  p.  49-71.  Comp.  Hochmuth:  Gotteskenntniss  und  Gottesverehrung,  Ein- 
leitung. 


24 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


by  Hisdai  Crescas  and  his  disciples,  Simon  Duran  and  Joseph 
Albo.1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  based  not  so  much  upon 
Rabbinical  teaching  as  upon  the  prevailing  views  of  Moham¬ 
medan  theology,2  and  were  undoubtedly  dictated  by  the 
desire  to  dispute  the  claims  of  Christianity  and  Islam  that 
they  represented  a  higher  revelation.  Our  modern  historical 
view,  however,  includes  all  human  thought  and  belief ;  it 
therefore  rejects  altogether  the  assumption  of  a  supernatural 
origin  of  either  the  written  or  the  oral  Torah,  and  insists  that 
the  subject  of  prophecy,  revelation,  and  inspiration  in  general  t 
be  studied  in  the  light  of  psychology  and  ethnology,  of  general 
history  and  comparative  religion. 

6.  The  third  fundamental  article  of  the  Jewish  faith  is 
the  belief  in  a  moral  government  of  the  world,  which  mani¬ 
fests  itself  in  the  reward  of  good  and  the  punishment  of  evil, 
either  here  or  hereafter.  Maimonides  divides  this  into  two 
articles,  which  really  belong  together,  his  ioth,  God’s  knowl¬ 
edge  of  all  human  acts  and  motives,  and  n,  reward  and 
punishment.  The  latter  includes  the  hereafter  and  the 
last  Day  of  Judgment,  which,  of  course,  applies  to  all  human 
beings. 

7.  Closely  connected  with  retribution  is  the  belief  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  which  is  last  among  the  thirteen 
articles.  This  belief,  which  originally  among  the  Pharisees 
had  a  national  and  political  character,  and  was  therefore 
connected  especially  with  the  Holy  Land  (as  will  be  seen  in 
Chapter  LIV  below),  received  in  the  Rabbinical  schools  more 
and  more  a  universal  form.  Maimonides  went  so  far  as  to 
follow  the  Platonic  view  rather  than  that  of  the  Bible  or  the 
Talmud,  and  thus  transformed  it  into  a  belief  in  the  con¬ 
tinuity  of  the  soul  after  death.  In  this  form,  however,  it  is 
actually  a  postulate,  or  corollary,  of  the  belief  in  retribution. 

1  See  Schechter,  1.  c.,  167  and  the  notes. 

2  See  Horowitz :  D.  Psychologie  u.  d.  jued.  Religionsphilosophie,  1883. 


THE  JEWISH  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH 


25 


8.  The  old  hope  for  the  national  resurrection  of  Israel  took 
in  the  Maimonidean  system  the  form  of  a  belief  in  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  (article  12),  to  which,  in  the  commentary  on 
the  Mishnah,  he  gives  the  character  of  a  belief  in  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  Davidic  dynasty.  Joseph  Albo,  with  others, 
disputes  strongly  the  fundamental  character  of  this  belief ; 
he  shows  the  untenability  of  Maimonides’  position  by  referring 
to  many  Talmudic  passages,  and  at  the  same  time  he  casts 
polemical  side  glances  upon  the  Christian  Church,  which  is 
really  founded  on  Messianism  in  the  special  form  of  its  Chris- 
tology.1  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  in  his  Cuzari ,  substitutes  for  this  as 
a  fundamental  doctrine  the  belief  in  the  election  of  Israel 
for  its  world-mission.2  It  certainly  redounds  to  the  credit  of 
the  leaders  of  the  modern  Reform  movement  that  they  took 
the  election  of  Israel  rather  than  the  Messiah  as  their  cardinal 
doctrine,  again  bringing  it  home  to  the  religious  consciousness 
of  the  Jew,  and  placing  it  at  the  very  center  of  their  system. 
In  this  way  they  reclaimed  for  the  Messianic  hope  the  uni¬ 
versal  character  which  was  originally  given  it  by  the  great 
seer  of  the  Exile.3 

9.  The  thirteen  articles  of  Maimonides,  in  setting  forth 
a  Jewish  Credo ,  formed  a  vigorous  opposition  to  the  Christian 
and  Mohammedan  creeds;  they  therefore  met  almost  uni¬ 
versal  acceptance  among  the  Jewish  people,  and  were  given 
a  place  in  the  common  prayerbook,  in  spite  of  their  deficien¬ 
cies,  as  shown  by  Crescas  and  his  school.  Nevertheless, 
we  must  admit  that  Crescas  shows  the  deeper  insight  into 
the  nature  of  religion  when  he  observes  that  the  main  fallacy 
of  the  Maimonidean  system  lies  in  founding  the  Jewish  faith 
on  speculative  knowledge ,  which  is  a  matter  of  the  intellect, 
rather  than  love  which  flows  from  the  heart,  and  which  alone 
leads  to  piety  and  goodness.  True  love,  he  says,  requires 


See  J.  E.,  art.  Albo  by  E.  G.  Hirsch, 
See  Schechter,  1.  c.,  p.  162. 

X  /GSC 


1 


26 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  belief  neither  in  retribution  nor  in  immortality.  More¬ 
over,  in  striking  contrast  to  the  insistence  of  Maimonides  on 
the  immutability  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  Crescas  maintains  the 
possibility  of  its  continuous  progress  in  accordance  with  the 
intellectual  and  spiritual  needs  of  the  time,  or,  what  amounts 
to  the  same  thing,  the  continuous  perfectibility  of  the  re¬ 
vealed  Law  itself.1  Thus  the  criticism  of  Crescas  leads  at 
once  to  a  radically  different  theology  than  that  of  Maimonides, 
and  one  which  appeals  far  more  to  our  own  religious  thought. 

10.  Another  doctrine  of  Judaism,  which  was  greatly  under¬ 
rated  by  medieval  scholars,  and  which  has  been  emphasized 
in  modern  times  only  in  contrast  to  the  Christian  theory  of 
original  sin,  is  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God. 
Judaism  holds  that  the  soul  of  man  came  forth  pure  from  the 
hand  of  its  Maker,  endowed  with  freedom,  unsullied  by  any 
inherent  evil  or  inherited  sin.  Thus  man  is,  through  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  his  own  free  will,  capable  of  attaining  an  ever  greater 
perfection  by  unfolding  and  developing  to  an  ever  higher  degree 
his  mental,  moral,  and  spiritual  powers  in  the  course  of  history. 
This  is  the  Biblical  idea  of  God’s  spirit  as  immanent  in  man ; 
all  prophetic  truth  is  based  upon  it ;  and  though  it  was  often 
obscured,  this  theory  was  voiced  by  many  of  the  masters  of 
Rabbinical  lore,  such  as  R.  Akiba  and  others.2 

11.  Every  attempt  to  formulate  the  doctrines  or  articles 
of  faith  of  Judaism  was  made,  in  order  to  guard  the  Jewish 
faith  from  the  intrusion  of  foreign  beliefs,  never  to  impose 
disputed  beliefs  upon  the  Jewish  community  itself.  Many, 
indeed,  challenged  the  fundamental  character  of  the  thirteen 
articles  of  Maimonides.  Albo  reduced  them  to  three,  viz. : 
the  belief  in  God,  in  revelation,  and  retribution ;  others,  with 
more  arbitrariness  than  judgment,  singled  out  three,  five,  six, 
or  even  more  as  principal  doctrines ; 3  while  rigid  conservatives, 

1  See  Schechter,  1.  c.,  p.  169.  2  Aboth,  III,  1 ;  Gen.  R.  XXI,  5. 

3  See  Schechter,  1.  c. 


THE  JEWISH  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH 


27 


such  as  Isaac  Abravanel  and  David  ben  Zimra,  altogether 
disapproved  the  attempt  to  formulate  articles  of  faith.  The 
former  maintained  that  every  word  in  the  Torah  is,  in  fact, 
a  principle  of  faith,  and  the  latter  1  pointed  in  the  same  way 
to  the  613  commandments  of  the  Torah,  spoken  of  by  R. 
Simlai  the  Haggadist  in  the  third  century.2 

The  present  age  of  historical  research  imposes  the  same 
necessity  of  restatement  or  reformulation  upon  us.  We 
must  do  as  Maimonides  did,  —  as  Jews  have  always  done,  — 
point  out  anew  the  really  fundamental  doctrines,  and  discard 
those  which  have  lost  their  holdup  on  the  modern  Jew,  or  which 
conflict  directly  with  his  religious  consciousness.  If  Judaism 
is  to  retain  its  prominent  position  among  the  powers  of  thought, 
and  to  be  clearly  understood  by  the  modern  world,  it  must 
again  reshape  its  religious  truths  in  harmony  with  the  domi¬ 
nant  ideas  of  the  age. 

Many  attempts  of  this  character  have  been  made  by  modern 
rabbis  and  teachers,  most  of  them  founded  upon  Albo’s  three 
articles.  Those  who  penetrated  somewhat  more  deeply  into 
the  essence  of  Judaism  added  a  fourth  article,  the  belief  in 
Israel’s  priestly  mission,  and  at  the  same  time,  instead  of  the 
belief  in  retribution,  included  the  doctrine  of  man’s  kinship 
with  God,  or,  if  one  may  coin  the  word,  his  God-childship .3 
Few,  however,  have  succeeded  in  working  out  the  entire  con¬ 
tent  of  the  Jewish  faith  from  a  modern  viewpoint,  which 
must  include  historical,  critical,  and  psychological  research, 
as  well  as  the  study  of  comparative  religion. 

12.  The  following  tripartite  plan  is  that  of  the  present 
attempt  to  present  the  doctrines  of  Judaism  systematically 
along  the  lines  of  historical  development : 

1  See  Loew,  1.  c.,  157,  and  his  “ Mafteah,”  p.  331 ;  Schechter,  1.  c. 

2  Makk.  23  b. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Catechism  by  E.  Schreiber. 


28 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


I.  God 

a.  Man’s  consciousness  of  God,  and  divine  revelation. 

b.  God’s  spirituality,  His  unity,  His  holiness,  His  perfection. 

c.  His  relation  to  the  world :  Creation  and  Providence. 

d.  His  relation  to  man :  His  justice,  His  love  and  mercy. 

II.  Man 

a.  Man’s  God-childship ;  his  moral  freedom  and  yearning  for  God. 

b.  Sin  and  repentance ;  prayer  and  worship ;  immortality,  reward  and 

punishment. 

c.  Man  and  humanity :  the  moral  factors  in  history. 

III.  Israel  and  the  Kingdom  of  God 

a.  The  priest-mission  of  Israel,  its  destiny  as  teacher  and  martyr  among 

the  nations,  and  its  Messianic  hope. 

b.  The  Kingdom  of  God:  the  nations  and  religions  of  the  world  in  a 

divine  plan  of  universal  salvation. 

c.  The  Synagogue  and  its  institutions. 

d.  The  ethics  of  Judaism  and  the  Kingdom  of  God. 


PART  I. 


GOD 


A.  GOD  AS  HE  MAKES  HIMSELF  KNOWN  TO  MAN 

CHAPTER  V 

Man’s  Consciousness  of  God  and  Belief  in  God 

1.  Holy  Writ  employs  two  terms  for  religion,  both  of 
which  lay  stress  upon  its  moral  and  spiritual  nature :  Yirath 
Elohim  —  “fear  of  God”  —  and  Daath  Elohim  —  “knowledge 
or  consciousness  of  God.”  Whatever  the  fear  of  God  may 
have  meant  in  the  lower  stages  of  primitive  religion,  in  the 
Biblical  and  Rabbinical  conceptions  it  exercises  a  wholesome 
moral  effect ;  it  stirs  up  the  conscience  and  keeps  man  from 
wrongdoing.  Where  fear  of  God  is  lacking,  violence  and 
vice  are  rife ; 1  it  keeps  society  in  order  and  prompts  the 
individual  to  walk  in  the  path  of  duty.  Hence  it  is  called 
“the  beginning  of  wisdom.”  2  The  divine  revelation  of  Sinai 
accentuates  as  its  main  purpose  “to  put  the  fear  of  God  into 
the  hearts  of  the  people,  lest  they  sin.”  3 

2.  God-consciousness,  or  “knowledge  of  God,”  signifies  an 
inner  experience  which  impels  man  to  practice  the  right  and  to 
shun  evil,  the  recognition  of  God  as  the  moral  power  of  life. 
“Because  there  is  no  knowledge  of  God,”  therefore  do  the 
people  heap  iniquity  upon  iniquity,  says  Hosea,  and  he  hopes 
to  see  the  broken  covenant  with  the  Lord  renewed  through 

1  Gen.  XX,  n.  2  Ps.  CXI,  io;  Prov.  IX,  io;  Job  XXVIII,  28. 

3  Ex.  XX,  20. 

29 


1 


30 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


faithfulness  grounded  on  the  consciousness  of  God.1  Jeremiah 
also  insists  upon  “the  knowledge  of  God”  as  a  moral  force, 
and,  like  Hosea,  he  anticipates  the  renewal  of  the  broken  cove¬ 
nant  when  “the  Lord  shall  write  His  law  upon  the  heart” 
of  the  people,  and  “they  shall  all  know  Him  from  the  least 
of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them.”  2  Wherever  Scripture 
speaks  of  “knowledge  of  God,”  3  it  always  means  the  moral 
and  spiritual  recognition  of  the  Deity  as  life’s  inmost  power, 
determining  human  conduct,  and  by  no  means  refers  to  mere 
intellectual  perception  of  the  truth  of  Jewish  monotheism, 
which  is  to  refute  the  diverse  forms  of  polytheism.  This 
misconception  of  the  term  “knowledge  of  God,”  as  used  in  the 
Bible,  led  the  leading  medieval  thinkers  of  Judaism,  especially 
the  school  of  Maimonides,  and  even  down  to  Mendelssohn, 
into  the  error  of  confusing  religion  and  philosophy,  as  if  both 
resulted  from  pure  reason.  It  is  man’s  moral  nature  rather 
than  his  intellectual  capacity,  that  leads  him  “to  know  God 
and  walk  in  His  ways.”  4 

3.  It  is  mainly  through  the  conscience  that  man  becomes 
conscious  of  God.  He  sees  himself,  a  moral  being,  guided  by 
motives  which  lend  a  purpose  to  his  acts  and  his  omissions, 
and  thus  feels  that  this  purpose  of  his  must  somehow  be  in 
accord  with  a  higher  purpose,  that  of  a  Power  who  directs  and 
controls  the  whole  of  life.  The  more  he  sees  purpose  ruling 
individuals  and  nations,  the  more  will  his  God-consciousness 
grow  into  the  conviction  that  there  is  but  One  and  Only  God, 
who  in  awful  grandeur  holds  dominion  over  the  world.  This 
is  the  developmental  process  of  religious  truth,  as  it  is  un- 

1  Hos.  IV,  1,  6;  II,  2 ;  XIII,  4-5. 

2  Jer.  IX,  23;  XXII,  16;  XXXI,  32-33. 

3  Deut.  IV,  39 ;  VII,  9. 

4  Knowledge  as  intellect  is  brought  out  as  early  as  the  Book  of  Wisdom, 
XIII,  1 ;  see  especially  Maimonides  :  Yesode  ha  Torah,  1,1-3;  Moreh,  1, 39 ;  III, 
28.  In  opposition,  see  Rosin :  Ethik  des  Maimonides,  10 1 ;  Luzzatto  and  Hoch- 
muth,  1.  c. ;  also  Dillmann :  H.  B.  d.  alttestamentl.  Theol.,  204  f. 


CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  GOD  AND  BELIEF  IN  GOD  31 


folded  by  the  prophets  and  as  it  underlies  the  historic  frame¬ 
work  of  the  Bible.  In  this  light  Jewish  monotheism  appears 
as  the  ripe  fruitage  of  religion  in  its  universal  as  well  as  its 
primitive  form  of  God-consciousness,  as  the  highest  attain¬ 
ment  of  man  in  his  eternal  seeking  after  God.  Polytheism, 
on  the  other  hand,  with  its  idolatrous  and  immoral  practices, 
appeared  to  the  prophets  and  law-givers  of  Israel  to  be,  not  a 
competing  religion,  but  simply  a  falling  away  from  God.  They 
felt  it  to  be  a  loss  or  eclipse  of  the  genuine  God-consciousness. 
The  object  of  revelation,  therefore,  is  to  lead  back  all  mankind 
to  the  God  whom  it  had  deserted,  and  to  restore  to  all  men  their 
primal  consciousness  of  God,  with  its  power  of  moral  regenera¬ 
tion. 

4.  In  the  same  degree  as  this  God-consciousness  grows 
stronger,  it  crystallizes  into  belief  in  God,  and  culminates  in 
love  of  God.  As  stated  above,1  in  Judaism  belief  —  Emunah 
—  never  denotes  the  acceptance  of  a  creed.  It  is  rather  the 
confiding  trust  by  which  the  frail  mortal  finds  a  firm  hold  on 
God  amidst  the  uncertainties  and  anxieties  of  life,  the  search 
for  His  shelter  in  distress,  the  reliance  on  His  ever-ready  help 
when  one’s  own  powers  fail.  The  believer  is  like  a  little  child 
who  follows  confidingly  the  guidance  of  his  father,  and  feels 
safe  when  near  his  arm.  In  fact,  the  double  meaning  of 
Emunah,  faith  and  faithfulness,  suggests  man’s  child-like 
faith  in  the  paternal  faithfulness  of  God.  The  patriarch 
Abraham  is  presented  in  both  Biblical  and  Rabbinical  writings 
as  the  pattern  of  such  a  faith,2  and  the  Jewish  people  likewise 
are  characterized  in  the  Talmud  as  “  believers,  sons  of  be¬ 
lievers.”  3  The  Midrash  extols  such  life-cheering  faith  as 
the  power  which  inspires  true  heroism  and  deeds  of  valor.4 

5.  The  highest  triumph  of  God-consciousness,  however,  is 
attained  in  love  of  God  such  as  can  renounce  cheerfully  all 


1  Ch.  IV. 

3  Shab.  97  a. 


2  Gen.  XV,  6;  see  J.  E.,  art.  Abraham. 
4  Mek.  Beshallak  6,  p.  41  ab. 


32 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  boons  of  life  and  undergo  the  bitterest  woe  without  a 
murmur.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  inculcates  love  of  God 
as  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Law,1  and  the  rabbis 
declare  it  to  be  the  highest  type  of  human  perfection.  In 
commenting  upon  the  verse,  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
might,”  they  say:  “Love  the  Law,  even  when  thy  life  is 
demanded  as  its  price,  nay,  even  with  the  last  breath  of  thy 
body,  with  a  heart  that  has  no  room  for  dissent,  amid  every 
visitation  of  destiny !”  2  They  point  to  the  tragic  martyrdom 
of  R.  Akiba  as  an  example  of  such  a  love  sealed  by  death.  In 
like  manner  they  refer  the  expression,  “  they  that  love  Thee,”  3 
to  those  who  bear  insults  without  resentment;  who  hear 
themselves  abused  without  retort;  who  do  good  unselfishly, 
without  caring  for  recognition ;  and  who  cheerfully  suffer  as 
a  test  of  their  fortitude  and  their  love  of  God.4  Thus  through¬ 
out  all  Rabbinical  literature  love  of  God  is  regarded  as  the 
highest  principle  of  religion  and  as  the  ideal  of  human  per¬ 
fection,  which  was  exemplified  by  Job,  according  to  the  oldest 
Haggadah,  and,  according  to  the  Mishnah,  by  Abraham.5 
Another  interpretation  of  the  verse  cited  from  Deuteronomy 
reads,  “Love  God  in  such  a  manner  that  thy  fellow-creatures 
may  love  Him  owing  to  thy  deeds.”  6 

All  these  passages  and  many  others  7  show  what  a  promi¬ 
nent  place  the  principle  of  love  occupied  in  Judaism.  This 
is,  indeed,  best  voiced  in  the  Song  of  Songs:8  “For  love  is 
strong  as  death ;  the  flashes  thereof  are  flashes  of  fire,  a  very 

1  Deut.  VI,  5;  X,  12;  XI,  1;  XIII,  22;  XXX,  6,  16,  20. 

2  Sifre  to  Deut.  VI,  5.  8  Judges  V,  31.  4  Shab.  88  b. 

6  See  Testament  of  Job,  and  notes  by  Kohler,  in  Semitic  Studies  in  Memory 
of  Alexander  Kohut,  271,  and  Sota,  V,  5. 

6  Sifre,  1.  c. 

7  See  Yoma,  86  a;  T.  d.  El.  R.,  X^QV;  Maimonides,  H.  Teshubah,  X; 
Crescas:  Or  Adonai,  I,  3.  Comp.  Testaments  Twelve  Patriarchs ,  Simeon  3, 
4 ;  Issachar,  5 ;  Philo :  Quod  omnis  probus  liber,  1 2  and  elsewhere. 

8  Song  of  Songs  VIII,  6,  7. 


CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  GOD  AND  BELIEF  IN  GOD  33 


flame  of  the  Lord.  Many  waters  cannot  quench  that  love, 
neither  can  the  floods  drown  it.”  It  set  the  heart  of  the  Jew 
aglow  during  all  the  centuries,  prompting  him  to  sacrifice  his 
life  and  all  that  was  dear  to  him  for  the  glorification  of  his 
God,  to  undergo  for  his  faith  a  martyrdom  without  parallel 
in  history. 


D 

o 


1 


CHAPTER  VI 


Revelation,  Prophecy,  and  Inspiration 

1.  Divine  revelation  signifies  two  different  things:  first, 
God’s  self-revelation,  which  the  Rabbis  called  Gilluy  Shekinah, 
“the  manifestation  of  the  divine  Presence,”  and,  second,  the 
revelation  of  His  will,  for  which  they  used  the  term  Torah 
min  ha  Shamayim,  “the  Law  as  emanating  from  God.”1 
The  former  appealed  to  the  child-like  belief  of  the  Biblical 
age,  which  took  no  offense  at  anthropomorphic  ideas,  such 
as  the  descent  of  God  from  heaven  to  earth,  His  appearing  to 
men  in  some  visible  form,  or  any  other  miracle ;  the  latter 
appears  to  be  more  acceptable  to  those  of  more  advanced 
religious  views.  Both  conceptions,  however,  imply  that  the 
religious  truth  of  revelation  was  communicated  to  man  by  a 
special  act  of  God. 

2.  Each  creative  act  is  a  mystery  beyond  the  reach  of 
human  observation.  In  all  fields  of  endeavor  the  flashing 
forth  of  genius  impresses  us  as  the  work  of  a  mysterious  force, 
which  acts  upon  an  elect  individual  or  nation  and  brings  it 
into  close  touch  with  the  divine.  In  the  religious  genius 
especially  is  this  true;  for  in  him  all  the  spiritual  forces  of 
the  age  seem  to  be  energized  and  set  into  motion,  then  to  burst 
forth  into  a  new  religious  consciousness,  which  is  to  revolu¬ 
tionize  religious  thought  and  feeling.  In  a  child-like  age 
when  the  emotional  life  and  the  imagination  predominate, 
and  man’s  mind,  still  receptive,  is  overwhelmed  by  mighty 
visions,  the  Deity  stirs  the  soul  in  some  form  perceptible  to 

1  See  Sifre  Deut.  XXVI,  8;  Sanh.  X,  i ;  J.  E.,  art.  Revelation;  Dillmann, 
6i  f. ;  Geiger,  D.  Jud.  u.  s.  Gesch.  I,  34  f. 


34 


REVELATION,  PROPHECY,  AND  INSPIRATION  35 


the  senses.  Thus  the  “seer”  assumes  a  trance-like  state 
where  the  Ego,  the  self-conscious  personality,  is  pushed  into 
the  background ;  he  becomes  a  passive  instrument,  the  mouth¬ 
piece  of  the  Deity ;  from  Him  he  receives  a  message  to  the 
people,  and  in  his  vision  he  beholds  God  who  sends  him.  This 
appearance  of  God  upon  the  background  of  the  soul,  which 
reflects  Him  like  a  mirror,  is  Revelation.1 

3.  The  states  of  the  soul  when  men  see  such  visions  of  the 
Deity  predominate  in  the  beginnings  of  all  religions.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  Scripture  ascribes  such  revelations  to  non-Israelites  as 
well  as  to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  of  Israel,  —  to  Abime- 
lek  and  Laban,  Balaam,  Job,  and  Eliphaz.2  Therefore  the 
Jewish  prophet  is  not  distinguished  from  the  rest  by  the 
capability  to  receive  divine  revelation,  but  rather  by  the 
intrinsic  nature  of  the  revelation  which  he  receives.  His 
vision  comes  from  a  moral  God.  The  Jewish  genius  perceived 
God  as  the  moral  power  of  life,  whether  in  the  form  expressed 
by  Abraham,  Moses,  Elijah,  or  by  the  literary  prophets, 
and  all  of  these,  coming  into  touch  with  Him,  were  lifted  into 
a  higher  sphere,  where  they  received  a  new  truth,  hitherto 

1  See  Deut.  XIII,  2-6,  where  prophet  forms  a  parallel  to  dreamer  of  dreams. 
God  appears  in  a  dream  to  Abraham  (Gen.  XV,  1,  12),  to  Abimelek  (Gen.  XX, 
3,  6),  to  Jacob  (XXVIII,  12;  XXXI,  n;  XL VI,  2),  to  Laban  (XXXI,  24), 
to  Balaam  (Num.  XXIV,  3),  and  to  Eliphaz  (Job  IV,  3-6).  Dream-like  visions 
open  the  prophetic  career  of  Moses  (Exod.  Ill,  3-6),  Samuel  (I  Sam.  Ill,  1, 
15,  21),  Isaiah  (Is.  VI,  1  f.),  Jeremiah  (Jer.  I,  n  f.),  Ezekiel  (Ezek.  I,  4),  and 
others.  Revelation  in  the  Bible  is  Mahazeh,  hazon,  and  hizayon,  “ vision”  — 
whence  hozeh ,  “seer”;  or  mareh ,  “sight,”  whence  roeh,  “seer.”  See  also 
Geiger :  Urschrift,  340 ;  390.  Prophecy  without  dream  or  vision  is  claimed 
for  Moses  (Num.  XII,  6-8;  Exod.  XXX,  n;  Deut.  XXXIV,  10;  see  Mai- 
monides:  Moreh ,  II,  43-47;  Albo,  Ikkarim,  III,  8).  The  revelation  on  Sinai 
is  described  as  “the  great  vision,”  or  mareh:  Exod.  Ill,  3;  XXIV,  17;  com¬ 
pare  Deut.  IV,  n-V,  23,  according  to  which  only  a  “voice”  is  heard.  Instead 
of  God  the  later  prophets  see  an  angel,  as  Zach.  I,  8,  n;  II,  2  f.  Compare 
Yebam.  49  b,  as  to  the  difference  between  Isaiah,  who  saw  God  in  a  vision,  and 
Moses,  who  saw  Him  “in  a  shining  mirror.”  He  will  appear  in  the  latter  way 
to  the  righteous  in  the  future  world,  Sue.  45  b ;  Lev.  R.  I,  14 ;  I  Cor.  XIII,  12. 

2  See  Gen.  XX,  6 ;  XXXI,  29 ;  Num.  XXIV ;  Job  IV,  16  f. ;  XXXVIII,  1. 


3^ 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


hidden  from  man.  In  speaking  through  them,  God  ap¬ 
peared  actually  to  have  stepped  into  the  sphere  of  human  life 
as  its  moral  Ruler.  This  self-revelation  of  God  as  the  Ruler 
of  man  in  righteousness,  which  must  be  viewed  in  the  life  of 
any  prophet  as  a  providential  act,  forms  the  great  historical 
sequence  in  the  history  of  Israel,  upon  which  rests  the  Jewish 
religion.1 

4.  The  divine  revelation  in  Israel  was  by  no  means  a 
single  act,  but  a  process  of  development,  and  its  various 
stages  correspond  to  the  degrees  of  culture  of  the  people. 
For  this  reason  the  great  prophets  also  depended  largely 
upon  dreams  and  visions,  at  least  in  their  consecration  to  the 
prophetic  mission,  when  one  solemn  act  was  necessary. 
After  that  the  message  itself  and  its  new  moral  content  set 
the  soul  of  the  prophet  astir.  Not  the  vision  or  its  imagery, 
but  the  new  truth  itself  seizes  him  with  irresistible  force,  so 
that  he  is  carried  away  by  the  divine  power  and  speaks  as 
the  mouthpiece  of  God,  using  lofty  poetic  diction  while  in 
a  state  of  ecstacy.  Hence  he  speaks  of  God  in  the  first  person. 
The  highest  stage  of  all  is  that  where  the  prophet  receives  the 
divine  truth  in  the  form  of  pure  thought  and  with  complete 
self-consciousness.  Therefore  the  Scripture  says  of  Moses 
and  of  no  other,  “The  Lord  spoke  to  Moses  face  to  face,  as 
a  man  speaks  to  another.”  2 

5.  The  story  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  on  Mount  Sinai  is 
in  reality  the  revelation  of  God  to  the  people  of  Israel  as  part 
of  the  great  world-drama  of  history.  Accordingly,  the  chief 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  miraculous  element,  the  descent 
of  the  Lord  to  the  mountain  in  fire  and  storm,  amid  thunder 
and  lightning,  while  the  Ten  Words  themselves  were  pro- 

JThe  Hebrew  word  for  prophecy  is  passive,  —  nibbd’  or  hithnabbe\  “to  be 
made  to  speak,”  or  “to  bubble  forth,”  —  the  Deity  being  the  active  power, 
while  the  prophet  is  His  mouthpiece. 

2  Ex.  XXXIII,  11 ;  Deut.  XXXIV,  10. 


REVELATION,  PROPHECY,  AND  INSPIRATION  37 


claimed  by  Moses  as  God’s  herald.1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
first  words  of  the  narrative  state  its  purpose,  the  consecration 
of  the  Jewish  people  at  the  outset  of  their  history  to  be  a  nation 
of  prophets  and  priests.2  Therefore  the  rabbis  lay  stress 
upon  the  acceptance  of  the  Law  by  the  people  in  saying : 
“  All  that  the  Lord  sayeth  we  shall  do  and  hearken.”  3  From 
a  larger  point  of  view,  we  see  here  the  dramatized  form  of  the 
truth  of  Israel’s  election  by  divine  Providence  for  its  historic 
religious  mission. 

6.  The  rabbis  ascribed  the  gifts  of  prophecy  to  pagans  as 
well  as  Israelites  at  least  as  late  as  the  erection  of  the  Tab¬ 
ernacle,  after  which  the  Divine  Presence  dwelt  there  in  the 
midst  of  Israel.4  They  say  that  each  of  the  Jewish  prophets 
was  endowed  with  a  peculiar  spiritual  power  that  corresponded 
with  his  character  and  his  special  training,  the  highest,  of  course, 
being  Moses,  whom  they  called  “the  father  of  the  prophets.”  5 

The  medieval  Jewish  thinkers,  following  the  lead  of 
Mohammedan  philosophers  or  theologians,  regard  revelation 
quite  differently,  as  an  inner  process  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet. 
According  to  their  mystical  or  rationalistic  viewpoint,  they 
describe  it  as  the  result  of  the  divine  spirit,  working  upon  the 
soul  either  from  within  or  from  without.  These  two  stand¬ 
points  betray  either  the  Platonic  or  the  Aristotelian  influence.6 
Indeed,  the  rabbis  themselves  showed  traces  of  neo-Platonism 

1  Ex.  XIX,  19 ;  XX,  19.  2  Ex.  XIX,  1-8. 

3  Shab.  88  a  after  Ex.  XXIV,  7. 

4  Seder  Olam  R.,  I  and  XXI;  Lev.  Rab.  I,  12-14;  B.  B.  15  b. 

6  Hag.  13  b;  Sanh.  89  a;  Lev.  R.  1.  c. 

6  See  Schmiedl :  Stud.  u.  jued.-arabische  Religions  philo  so  phie,  191-192 ; 
S.  Horowitz :  D.  Prophetologie  i.  d.  jued.  Religions philo s 0 phie ;  Sandler :  D. 
Problem  d.  Prophetie  i.  d.  jued.  Religions philoso phie;  J.  E.,  art.  Prophets  and 
Prophecy;  Emunoth  III,  4;  Cuzari,  I,  95;  II,  10-12;  Emunah  Ramah,  II, 
5,  1;  Moreh,  II,  32-48;  Yesode  ha  Torah,  VII;  Or  Adonai,  II,  4,  1;  Ikkarim , 
III,  8-12,  17;  Nachmanides  to  Gen.  XVIII,  2;  Abravanel  to  Gen.  XXI,  27; 
Comp.  Husik,  Hist.  Med.  Jew.  Phil.,  Index  s.  v.  Prophecy;  Enc.  Rel.  Ethics, 
art.  Philosophy  and  Prophecy. 


38 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


when  they  described  the  ecstatic  state  of  the  prophets,  or 
when  they  spoke  of  the  divine  spirit  speaking  through  the 
prophet  as  through  a  vocal  instrument,  or  when  they  made 
distinctions  between  seeing  the  Deity  “in  a  bright  mirror” 
or  “through  a  dark  glass.”  1 

The  view  most  remote  from  the  simple  one  of  the  Bible  is 
the  rationalistic  standpoint  of  Maimonides,  who,  following 
altogether  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Arabic  neo-Aristotelians, 
assumed  that  there  were  different  degrees  of  prophecy,  de¬ 
pending  upon  the  influence  exerted  upon  the  human  intel¬ 
lect  by  the  sphere  of  the  Highest  Intelligence.  He  enumerates 
eleven  such  grades,  of  which  Moses  had  the  highest  rank,  as  he 
entered  into  direct  communication  with  the  supreme  intel¬ 
lectual  sphere.  Still  bolder  is  his  explanation  of  the  revela¬ 
tion  on  Sinai.  He  holds  that  the  first  two  words  were  under¬ 
stood  by  the  people  directly  as  logical  evidences  of  truth,  for 
they  enunciated  the  philosophical  doctrines  of  the  existence 
and  unity  of  God,  whereas  the  other  words  they  understood 
only  as  sounds  without  meaning,  so  that  Moses  had  to  inter¬ 
pret  them.2  In  contrast  to  this  amazing  rationalism  of  Mai¬ 
monides  is  the  view  of  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  who  asserts  that  the 
gift  of  prophecy  became  the  specific  privilege  of  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  Abraham  after  their  consecration  as  God’s  chosen 
people  at  Sinai,  and  that  the  holy  soil  of  Palestine  was  as¬ 
signed  to  them  as  the  habitation  best  adapted  to  its  exercise.3 
The  other  attempt  of  some  rationalistic  thinkers  of  the  Middle 
Ages  to  have  a  “sound  created  for  the  purpose”4  of  uttering 
the  words  “I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,”  rather  than  accepting 
the  anthropomorphic  Deity,  merits  no  consideration  whatever. 

7.  It  is  an  indisputable  fact  of  history  that  the  Jewish  people, 

1  Horowitz,  1.  c.  p.  11-16;  Gen.  R.  XVII,  6;  Lev.  R.  1.  c.;  Sanh.  17  b; 
Philo:  De  Decalog.,  21;  de  Migratione  Abrahami,  7;  comp.  I  Corinth.  XIII, 
12. 

2  Moreh,  1.  c.  3  Cuzari,  1.  c. 

4  Kol  Nibra :  Moreh ,  I,  65 ;  Emunoth,  II,  8 ;  Cuzari,  I,  89. 


REVELATION,  PROPHECY,  AND  INSPIRATION  39 


on  account  of  its  peculiar  religious  bent,  was  predestined  to 
be  the  people  of  revelation.  Its  leading  spirits,  its  prophets 
and  psalmists,  its  law-givers  and  inspired  writers  differ  from 
the  seers,  singers,  and  sages  of  other  nations  by  their  unique 
and  profound  insight  into  the  moral  nature  of  the  Deity.  In 
striking  contrast  is  the  progress  of  thought  in  Greece,  where 
the  awakening  of  the  ethical  consciousness  caused  a  rupture 
between  the  culture  of  the  philosophers  and  the  popular 
religion,  and  led  to  a  final  decay  of  the  political  and  social 
life.  The  prophets  of  Israel,  however,  the  typical  men  of 
genius  of  their  people,  gradually  brought  about  an  advance 
of  popular  religion,  so  that  they  could  finally  present  as  their 
highest  ideal  the  God  of  the  fathers,  and  make  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  His  will  the  foundation  of  the  law  of  holiness,  by 
which  they  desired  to  regulate  the  entire  conduct  of  man. 
Thus,  religion  was  no  longer  confined  by  the  limits  of  nation¬ 
ality,  but  was  transformed  into  a  spiritual  force  for  all  man¬ 
kind,  to  lead  through  a  revelation  of  the  One  and  Holy  God 
toward  the  highest  morality. 

8.  The  development  of  thought  brought  the  God-seeking 
spirits  to  the  desire  to  know  His  will,  or,  in  Scriptural  language, 
His  ways,  in  order  to  attain  holiness  in  their  pursuit.  The 
natural  consequence  was  the  gradual  receding  of  the  power  of 
imagination  which  had  made  the  enraptured  seer  behold  God 
Himself  in  visions.  As  the  Deity  rose  more  and  more  above 
the  realm  of  the  visible,  the  newly  conceived  truth  was  real¬ 
ized  as  coming  to  the  sacred  writer  through  the  spirit  of  God 
or  an  angel.  Inspiration  took  the  place  of  revelation.  This, 
however,  still  implies  a  passive  attitude  of  the  soul  carried 
away  by  the  truth  it  receives  from  on  high.  This  supernatural 
element  disappears  gradually  and  passes  over  into  sober,  self- 
conscious  thought,  in  which  the  writer  no  longer  thinks  of 
God  as  the  Ego  speaking  through  him,  but  as  an  outside 
Power  spoken  of  in  the  third  person. 


40 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


A  still  lower  degree  of  inspiration  is  represented  by  those 
writings  which  lack  altogether  the  divine  afflatus,  and  to 
which  is  ascribed  a  share  of  the  holy  spirit  only  through  gen¬ 
eral  consensus  of  opinion.  Often  this  imprint  of  the  divine 
is  not  found  in  them  by  the  calm  judgment  of  a  later  gen¬ 
eration,  and  the  exact  basis  for  the  classification  of  such 
writings  among  the  holy  books  is  sometimes  difficult  to  state. 
We  can  only  conclude  that  in  the  course  of  time  they  were 
regarded  as  holy  by  that  very  spirit  which  was  embodied  in 
the  Synagogue  and  its  founders,  “the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,”  who  in  their  work  of  canonizing  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  were  believed  to  have  been  under  the  influence  of 
the  holy  spirit.1 

9.  Except  for  the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  idea  of  a  me¬ 
chanical  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  quite  foreign  to  Judaism. 
Not  until  the  second  Christian  century  did  the  rabbis 
finally  decide  on  such  questions  as  the  inspiration  of  certain 
books  among  the  Hagiographa  or  even  among  the  Prophets, 
or  whether  certain  books  now  excluded  from  the  canon  were 
not  of  equal  rank  with  the  canonical  ones.2  In  fact,  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  holy  spirit  was  for  some  time  ascribed,  not  only 
to  Biblical  writers,  but  also  to  living  masters  of  the  law.3 

1  According  to  the  rabbis,  the  working  of  the  holy  spirit  ceased  with  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  who,  with  Ezra,  were  included  also  among  the  “Men 
of  the  Great  Synagogue.”  See  Tos.  Sota  XIII,  2 ;  Seder  01am  R.  XXX ; 
Sanh.  11  a.  See  J.  E.,  art.  Synagogue,  Men  of  the  Great;  Holy  Spirit;  In¬ 
spiration.  Comp.  B.  B.  14  b,  15  a ;  Yoma  9  b ;  Meg.  3  a,  7  a ;  I  Macc.  IV,  46 ; 
Ps.  LXXIV,  9 ;  Josephus,  Con.  Apion.,  I,  8 ;  Philo  :  Vita  Mosis,  II,  7  ;  Aristeas, 
305-307.  As  to  the  difference  between  the  spirit  of  prophecy  and  the  holy 
spirit,  see  Cuzari,  III,  32-35;  Moreh,  II,  35-37.  The  Essenes  claimed  the 
holy  spirit  for  their  apocryphal  writings;  see  IV  Esdras  XIV,  38;  Book  of 
Wisdom  VII,  27. 

2  On  the  disputes  concerning  canonical  books,  see  Yadayim  III,  5 ;  Ab.  d. 
R.  N.,  I,  ed.  Schechter,  2-3  ;  Shab.  30  b;  Meg.  7  a.  Comp.  B.  K.  92  b,  where 
Ben  Sira  is  quoted  as  one  of  the  Hagiographa. 

8  See  Tos.  Pes.  I,  27;  IV,  2;  Sota  XIII,  3;  Yer.  Horay.  Ill,  48  c;  Lev. 
R.  XXI,  7. 


REVELATION,  PROPHECY,  AND  INSPIRATION  41 


i 


The  fact  is  that  divine  influence  cannot  be  measured  by  the 
yardstick  or  the  calendar.  Where  it  is  felt,  it  bursts  forth  as 
from  a  higher  world,  creating  for  itself  its  proper  organs 
and  forms.  The  rabbis  portray  God  as  saying  to  Israel, 
“Not  I  in  My  higher  realm,  but  you  with  your  human  needs 
fix  the  form,  the  measure,  the  time,  and  the  mode  of  ex¬ 
pression  for  that  which  is  divine.”  1 

10.  While  Christianity  and  Islam,  its  daughter-religions, 
must  admit  the  existence  of  a  prior  revelation,  Judaism  knows 
of  none.  It  claims  its  own  prophetic  truth  as  the  revelation, 
admits  the  title  Books  of  Revelation  (Bible)  only  for  its  own 
sacred  writings,  and  calls  the  Jewish  nation  alone  the  People 
of  Revelation.  The  Church  and  the  Mosque  achieved  great 
things  in  propagating  the  truths  of  the  Sinaitic  revelation 
among  the  nations,  but  added  to  it  no  new  truths  of  an  es¬ 
sential  nature.  Indeed,  they  rather  obscured  the  doctrines 
of  God’s  unity  and  holiness.  On  the  other  hand,  the  people 
of  the  Sinaitic  revelation  looked  to  it  with  a  view  of  ever 
revitalizing  the  dead  letter,  thus  evolving  ever  new  rules  of 
life  and  new  ideas,  without  ever  placing  new  and  old  in  op¬ 
position,  as  was  done  by  the  founder  of  the  Church.  Each 
generation  was  to  take  to  heart  the  words  of  Scripture  as  if 
they  had  come  “this  very  day”  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord.2 

1  R.  h.  Sh.  27  a;  Mak.  22  b.  2  Sifre  Deut.  VI,  4. 


A 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  Torah  —  the  Divine  Instruction 

i.  During  the  Babylonian  Exile  the  prophetic  word  became 
the  source  of  comfort  and  rejuvenation  for  the  Jewish  people. 
Now  in  its  place  Ezra  the  Scribe  made  the  Book  of  the  Law 
of  Moses  the  pivot  about  which  the  entire  life  of  the  people 
was  to  revolve.  By  regular  readings  from  it  to  the  assembled 
worshipers,  he  made  it  the  source  of  common  instruction. 
Instead  of  the  priestly  Law,  which  was  concerned  only  with 
the  regulation  of  the  ritual  life,  the  Law  became  the  people’s 
book  of  instruction,  a  Torah  for  all  alike,1  while  the  prophetic 
books  were  made  secondary  and  were  employed  by  the  preacher 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  service  as  “ words  of  consolation.”  2 
Upon  the  Pentateuch  was  built  up  the  divine  service  of  the 
Synagogue  as  well  as  the  whole  system  of  communal  life, 
with  both  its  law  and  ethics.  The  prophets  and  other  sacred 
books  were  looked  upon  only  as  means  of  “ opening  up”  or 
illustrating  the  contents  of  the  Torah.  These  other  parts  of 


1  On  the  term  Torah  see  Smend :  Lehrb.  d.  alttest.  Religions gesch.;  Stade : 
Bibl.  Theol.  d.  Alt.  Test.,  Index  s.  v.  Torah;  W.  J.  Beecher  :  Jour.  Bibl.  Lit., 
1905,  1-16;  “Thora  a  Word  Study  in  the  Old  Testament.”  For  Torah  as 
Law,  see  Neh.  VIII,  1 ;  Joshua  I,  7,  and  throughout  the  Pentateuch;  as  moral 
instruction,  see  Hos.  IV,  6 ;  VIII,  1 ;  Is.  I,  10 ;  V,  24 ;  XXX,  9 ;  LI,  4 ;  Mic. 
IV,  2;  Jer.  XXXVI,  4  f. ;  XXXI,  32;  Ps.  XVI,  8;  Prov.  VI,  22;  VII,  2; 
Guedeman :  Quell,  z.  G.  d.  Unterrichts,  at  the  beginning ;  Claude  Montefiore : 
Hibbert  Lectures,  1892,  p.  465  f. 

2  Nehematha,  which  means  the  Messianic  hope;  see  Kohut:  Aruch  V,  328 
and  Appendix  59. 


42 


THE  TORAH  — THE  DIVINE  INSTRUCTION 


43 


the  Mikra  (“the  collection  of  books  for  public  reading”)  were 
declared  to  be  inferior  in  holiness,  so  that,  according  to  the 
Rabbinical  rule,  they  were  not  even  allowed  to  be  put  into 
the  same  scroll  as  the  Pentateuch.1  Moreover,  neither  the 
number,  order,  nor  the  division  of  the  Biblical  books  was 
fixed.  The  Talmud  gives  24,  Josephus  only  2 2. 2  Tradition 
claims  a  completely  divine  origin  only  for  the  Pentateuch  or 
Torah,  while  the  rabbis  often  point  out  the  human  element  in 
the  other  two  classes  of  the  Biblical  collection.3 
^  2.  The  traditional  belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Torah 
includes  not  only  every  word,  but  also  the  accepted  inter¬ 
pretation  of  each  letter,  for  both  written  and  oral  law  are 
ascribed  to  the  revelation  to  Moses  on  Mt.  Sinai,  to  be  trans¬ 
mitted  thence  from  generation  to  generation.  Whoever 
denies  the  divine  origin  of  either  the  written  or  the  oral  law 
is  declared  to  be  an  unbeliever  who  has  no  share  in  the  world 
to  come,  according  to  the  Tannaitic  code,  and  consequently 
according  to  Maimonides 4  also.  But  here  arises  a  question 
of  vital  importance :  What  becomes  of  the  Torah  as  the 
divine  foundation  of  Judaism  under  the  study  of  modern 
times?  Even  conservative  investigators,  such  as  Frankel, 
Graetz,  and  Isaac  Hirsch  Weiss,  not  to  mention  such  radicals 
as  Zunz  and  Geiger,  admit  the  gradual  progress  and  growth 
of  this  very  system  of  law,  both  oral  and  written.  And  if 
different  historical  conditions  have  produced  the  development 

1  See  B.  B.  13  b ;  Meg.  Ill,  1 ;  IV,  4 ;  comp.  Ned.  22  b;  Taan.  9  a ;  Shab. 
104  a;  Sifra  Behukothai  at  end ;  Eccl.  R.  I,  10;  Ex.  R.  XXXVIII,  6.  Zunz: 
Gottesd.  Vortr.,  46  f.,  and  art.  Canon  and  Bible  in  the  various  encyclopedias. 
As  to  Torah  for  the  whole  Bible,  see  Mek.  Shira  1;  Sanh.  37  a,  91  b;  Ab. 
Zar.  17  a;  M.  K.  5  a;  comp.  I  Cor.  XIV,  21 ;  John  X,  34;  XII,  34;  XV,  25. 
For  Torah  as  Nomos,  or  Law,  see  II  Macc.  XV,  9. 

2  Bousset,  1.  c.,  128-129. 

3  On  the  divine  origin  of  the  Torah,  see  Sanh.  99  a ;  Sifra  Kedoshim  8 ; 
Behar  1 ;  Behukothay  8.  Regarding  the  meaning  of  metammin  eth  ha  yadayim 
in  the  sense  of  taboo  for  the  holy  writings,  see  Geiger:  Urschrift,  p.  146. 

4  Sanh.  99  a;  Maim.  H.  Teshubah  III,  8. 


44 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  the  law  itself,  we  must  assume  a  number  of  human  authors 
in  place  of  a  single  act  of  divine  revelation.1 

3.  But  another  question  of  equal  importance  confronts  us 
here,  the  meaning  of  Torah.  Originally,  no  doubt,  Torah 
signified  the  instruction  given  by  the  priests  on  ritual  or  ju¬ 
ridical  matters.  Out  of  these  decisions  arose  the  written  laws 
( Toroth ),  which  the  priesthood  in  the  course  of  time  collected 
into  codes.  After  a  further  process  of  development  they  ap¬ 
peared  as  the  various  books  of  Moses,  which  were  finally 
united  into  the  Code  or  Torah.  This  Torah  was  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  new  Judean  commonwealth,  the  “  heritage  of 
the  congregation  of  Jacob.’’ 2  The  priestly  Torah,  lightly 
regarded  during  the  prophetic  period,  was  exalted  by  post- 
exilic  Judaism,  so  that  the  Sadducean  priesthood  and  their 
successors,  the  rabbis,  considered  strict  observance  of  the 
legal  form  to  be  the  very  essence  of  religion.  Is  this,  then, 
the  true  nature  of  Judaism?  Is  it  really  —  as  Christian 
theologians  have  held  ever  since  the  days  of  Paul,  the  great 
antagonist  of  Judaism  —  mere  nomism,  a  religion  of  law, 
which  demanded  formal  compliance  with  its  statutes  without 
regard  to  their  inner  value?  Or  shall  we  rather  follow  Rabbi 
Simlai,  the  Haggadist,  who  first  enumerated  the  613  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  Torah  (mandatory  and  prohibitive),  con¬ 
sidering  that  their  one  aim  is  the  higher  moral  law ,  in  that 
they  are  all  summed  up  by  a  few  ethical  principles,  which 
he  finds  in  the  15th  Psalm,  Isaiah  XXXIII,  15 ;  Micah  VI, 
8 ;  Isaiah  LVI,  1 ;  and  Amos  V,  4  ?  3 

4.  All  these  questions  have  but  one  answer,  a  reconciling 
one.  Judaism  has  the  two  factors,  the  priest  with  his  regard 
for  the  law  and  the  prophet  with  his  ethical  teaching ;  and 
the  Jewish  Torah  embodies  both  aspects,  law  and  doctrine. 

1  Comp.  Kohler:  Hebrew  Union  College  Annual,  1904,  “The  Four  Ells  of 
the  Halakah.” 

2  Deut.  XXXIII,  4. 


3  Mak.  23  b. 


THE  TORAH— THE  DIVINE  INSTRUCTION 


45 


These  two  elements  became  more  and  more  correlated,  as  the 
different  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  embodied  them  were 
molded  together  into  the  one  scroll  of  the  Law.  In  fact,  the 
prophet  Jeremiah,  in  denouncing  the  priesthood  for  its  neglect 
of  the  principles  of  justice,  and  rebuking  scathingly  the 
people  for  their  wrongdoing,  pointed  to  the  divine  law  of 
righteousness  as  the  one  which  should  be  written  upon  the 
hearts  of  men.1  Likewise,  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy, 
which  was  the  product  of  joint  activity  by  prophet  and  priest, 
the  Law  was  built  upon  the  highest  moral  principle,  the  love 
of  God  and  man.  In  a  still  larger  sense  the  Pentateuch  as  a 
whole  contains  priestly  law  and  universal  religion  inter¬ 
twined.  In  it  the  eternal  verities  of  the  Jewish  faith,  God’s 
omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  moral  government  of  the  world, 
are  conveyed  in  the  historical  narratives  as  an  introduction 
to  the  law. 

5.  Thus  the  Torah  as  the  expression  of  Judaism  was  never 
limited  to  a  mere  system  of  law.  At  the  outset  it  served  as 
a  book  of  instruction  concerning  God  and  the  world  and 
became  ever  richer  as  a  source  of  knowledge  and  speculation, 
because  all  knowledge  from  other  sources  was  brought  into 
relation  with  it  through  new  modes  of  interpretation.  Various 
systems  of  philosophy  and  theology  were  built  upon  it.  Nay 
more,  the  Torah  became  divine  Wisdom  itself,2  the  architect 
of  the  Creator,  the  beginning  and  end  of  creation.3 

While  the  term  Torah  thus  received  an  increasingly  compre¬ 
hensive  meaning,  the  rabbis,  as  exponents  of  orthodox  Juda¬ 
ism,  came  to  consider  the  Pentateuch  as  the  only  book  of  reve- 

1  Jerem.  XXXI,  32. 

2  Comp.  Schechter,  Aspects,  p.  120-136,  and  see  Ben  Sira,  XXIV,  8-23; 
XVII,  11 ;  Baruch  III,  38  f.;  Apoc.  Baruch  XXXVIII,  4;  XLIV,  16;  IV 
Esdras  VIII,  12;  IX,  37;  Philo:  Vita  Mosis,  II,  3,9;  Gen.  R.  I;  P.  d.  R. 
El.  III. 

3  This  apotheosis  of  the  Torah  is  put  in  a  wrong  light  by  Weber,  Juedische 
Theologie,  157  f.,  197,  but  is  stated  better  in  Bousset,  1.  c.,  136-142. 


4  6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


lation,  every  letter  of  which  emanated  directly  from  God.  The 
other  books  of  the  Bible  they  regarded  as  due  only  to  the 
indwelling  of  the  holy  spirit,  or  to  the  presence  of  God,  the 
Shekinah.  Moreover,  they  held  that  changes  by  the  prophets 
and  other  sacred  writers  were  anticipated,  in  essentials,  in 
the  Torah  itself,  and  were  therefore  only  its  expansions  and 
interpretations.  Accordingly,  they  are  frequently  quoted  as 
parts  of  the  Torah  or  as  “  words  of  tradition.”  1 

6.  Orthodox  Judaism,  then,  accepted  as  a  fundamental 
doctrine  the  view  that  both  the  Mosaic  Law  and  its  Rabbinical 
interpretation  were  given  by  God  to  Moses  on  Mt.  Sinai. 
This  viewpoint  is  contradicted  by  all  our  knowledge  and  our 
whole  mode  of  thinking,  and  thus  both  our  historical  and 
religious  consciousness  constrain  us  to  take  the  position  of 
the  prophets.  To  them  and  to  us  the  real  Torah  is  the  un¬ 
written  moral  law  which  underlies  the  precepts  of  both  the 
written  law  and  its  oral  interpretation.  From  this  point  of 
view,  Moses,  as  the  first  of  the  prophets,  becomes  the  first 
mediator  of  the  divine  legislation,  and  the  original  Decalogue 
is  seen  to  be  the  starting  point  of  a  long  process  of  develop¬ 
ment,  from  which  grew  the  laws  of  righteousness  and  holiness 
that  were  to  rule  the  life  of  Israel  and  of  mankind.2 

7.  The  time  of  composition  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  including  the  Decalogue,  must  be  decided  by 
independent  critical  and  historical  research.  It  is  sufficient 
for  us  to  know  that  since  the  time  of  Ezra  the  foundation  of 

1  Dibre  Kabbalah,  R.  h.  Sh.  7  a,  19  a;  Yer.  Halla  I,  57  b;  see  Levy,  W.  B., 
s.  v.  Kabbalah. 

2  The  personality  of  Moses  was  at  first  exalted  to  almost  superhuman 
height;  see  Ben  Sira,  XLV,  2;  Assumptio  Mosis,  I,  14;  XI,  16;  Philo:  Vita 
Mo  sis,  III,  39 ;  Josephus :  Antiquities,  IV,  32  b;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  140  f.  In  contrast 
to  the  Church  view  of  Jesus  the  rabbis  later  emphasized  the  human  frailties 
of  Moses:  “Never  did  divine  majesty  descend  to  the  habitations  of  mortal 
man,  nor  did  ever  a  mortal  man  such  as  Moses  and  Elijah  ascend  to  heaven, 
the  dwelling-place  of  God,”  taught  Rabbi  Jose  (Suk.  5  a). 


THE  TORAH  — THE  DIVINE  INSTRUCTION 


47 


Judaism  has  been  the  completed  Torah,  with  its  twofold 
aspect  as  law  and  as  doctrine.  As  law  it  contributed  to  the 
marvelous  endurance  and  resistance  of  the  Jewish  people, 
inasmuch  as  it  imbued  them  with  the  proud  consciousness  of 
possessing  a  law  superior  to  that  of  other  nations,  one  which 
would  endure  as  long  as  heaven  and  earth.1  Furthermore,  it 
permeated  Judaism  with  a  keen  sense  of  duty  and  imprinted 
the  ideal  of  holiness  upon  the  whole  of  life.  At  the  same 
time  it  gave  rise  also  to  ritualistic  piety,  which,  while  tena¬ 
ciously  clinging  to  the  traditional  practice  of  the  law,  fos¬ 
tered  hair-splitting  casuistry  and  caused  the  petrifaction  of  re¬ 
ligion  in  the  codified  Halakah.  As  doctrine  it  impressed  its 
ethical  and  humane  idealism  upon  the  people,  lifting  them 
far  above  the  narrow  confines  of  nationality,  and  making 
them  a  nation  of  thinkers.  Hence  their  eagerness  for  their 
mission  to  impart  the  wisdom  stored  in  their  writings  to  all 
humanity  as  its  highest  boon  and  the  very  essence  of  divine 
wisdom. 

1  See  Deut.  IV,  6-8;  Jer.  XXXI,  34-35 ;  Philo:  Vita  Mosis,  II,  14;  Jo¬ 
sephus  :  Apion,  II,  277. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


God’s  Covenant 

i.  Judaism  has  one  specific  term  for  religion,  representing 
the  moral  relation  between  God  and  man,  namely,  Berith , 
covenant.  The  covenant  was  concluded  by  God  with  the 
patriarchs  and  with  Israel  by  means  of  sacrificial  blood,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  primitive  custom  by  which  tribes  or  individuals 
became  “  blood  brothers,”  when  they  were  both  sprinkled 
with  the  sacrificial  blood  or  both  drank  of  it.1  The  first  cov¬ 
enant  of  God  was  made  after  the  flood,  with  Noah  as  the  rep¬ 
resentative  of  mankind ;  it  was  intended  to  assure  him  and 
all  coming  generations  of  the  perpetual  maintenance  of  the 
natural  order  without  interruption  by  flood,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  demand  of  all  mankind  the  observance  of  certain  laws, 
such  as  not  to  shed,  or  eat,  blood.  Here  at  the  very  beginning 
of  history  religion  is  taken  as  the  universal  basis  of  human 
morality,  so  developing  at  the  outset  the  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciple  of  Judaism  that  it  rests  upon  a  religion  of  humanity, 
which  it  desires  to  establish  in  all  purity.  As  the  universal 
idea  of  man  forms  thus  its  beginning,  so  Judaism  will  attain 
its  final  goal  only  in  a  divine  covenant  comprising  all  hu¬ 
manity.  Both  the  rabbis  and  the  Hellenistic  writers  con¬ 
sider  the  covenant  of  Noah  with  its  so-called  Noahitic  com¬ 
mandments  as  unwritten  laws  of  humanity.  In  fact,  they 
are  referred  to  Adam  also,  so  that  religion  appears  in  its 

1  See  Herodotus,  III,  8;  IV,  70;  Jer.  XXIV,  18;  H.  Clay  Trumbull:  The 
Blood  Covenant ,  New  York,  1885;  Kraetschmar:  D.  Bundervorstellung  i.  A. 
Test.,  1896;  J.  E.  and  Encycl.  of  Rel.  and  Ethics,  art.  Covenant. 

48 


GOD’S  COVENANT 


49 


essence  as  nothing  else  than  a  covenant  of  God  with  all 
mankind.1 

2.  Accordingly,  Judaism  is  a  special  basis  of  relationship 
between  God  and  Israel.  Far  from  superseding  the  universal 
covenant  with  Noah,  or  confining  it  to  the  Jewish  people, 
this  covenant  aims  to  reclaim  all  members  of  the  human 
family  for  the  wider  covenant  from  which  they  have  relapsed. 
God  chose  for  this  purpose  Abraham  as  the  one  who  was 
faithful  to  His  moral  law,  and  made  a  special  covenant  with 
him  for  all  his  descendants,  that  they  might  foster  justice 
and  righteousness,  at  first  within  the  narrow  sphere  of  the 
nation,  and  then  in  ever-widening  circles  of  humanity.2 
Yet  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  only  the  precursor  of 
the  covenant  concluded  with  Israel  through  Moses  on  Mt. 
Sinai,  by  which  the  Jewish  people  were  consecrated  to  be  the 
eternal  guardians  of  the  divine  covenant  with  mankind,  until 
the  time  when  it  shall  encompass  all  the  nations.3 

3.  In  this  covenant  of  Sinai,  referred  to  by  the  prophet 
Elijah,  and  afterward  by  many  others,  the  free  moral  re¬ 
lationship  of  man  to  God  is  brought  out;  this  forms  the 
characteristic  feature  of  a  revealed  religion  in  contradistinc¬ 
tion  to  natural  religion.  In  paganism  the  Deity  formed  an  in¬ 
separable  part  of  the  nation  itself ;  but  through  the  covenant 
God  became  a  free  moral  power,  appealing  for  allegiance  to 
the  spiritual  nature  of  man.  This  idea  of  the  covenant  sug¬ 
gested  to  the  prophet  Hosea  the  analogy  with  the  conjugal 
relation,4  a  conception  of  love  and  loyalty  which  became 
typical  of  the  tender  relation  of  God  to  Israel  through  the 
centuries.  In  days  of  direst  woe  Jeremiah  and  the  book  of 

1  See  Gen.  DC,  1— 17 ;  Tos.  Ab.  Zar.  VIII,  4;  San.  56  a;  Gen.  R.  XVI, 
XXIV ;  Jubilees  VI,  10  f. ;  Bernays :  Ges.  Abh.  I,  252  f.,  272  f. ;  II,  71-80. 

2  Gen.  XV,  18;  XVII,  2  f.;  XVIII,  19;  Lev.  XXVI,  42;  Jubilees  I,  51. 

3  Ex.  XIX,  5;  XXIV,  6-8;  XXXIV,  28;  Deut.  IV-V,  XXVIII,  XXIX; 

Comp.  I  Kings  XIX,  10,  14;  Jer.  XI;  XXXI;  XXXIV,  13;  Ezek.  XVI- 
XVII.  4  Hos.  II,  18-20. 


50 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Deuteronomy  invested  this  covenant  with  the  character  of 
indestructibility  and  inviolability.1  God’s  covenant  with 
Israel  is  everlasting  like  that  with  the  heaven  and  the  earth ; 
it  is  ever  to  be  renewed  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  but  never 
to  be  replaced  by  a  new  covenant.  Upon  this  eternal  renewal 
of  the  covenant  with  God  rests  the  unique  history  of  Judaism, 
its  wondrous  preservation  and  regeneration  throughout  the 
ages.  Paul’s  doctrine  of  a  new  covenant  to  replace  the  old2 
conflicts  with  the  very  idea  of  the  covenant,  and  even  with  the 
words  of  Jeremiah. 

4.  The  Israelitish  nation  inherited  from  Abraham,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  priestly  Code,  the  rite  of  circumcision  as  a  “sign  of 
the  covenant,”  3  but  under  the  prophetic  influence,  with  its 
loathing  of  all  sacrificial  blood,  the  Sabbath  was  placed  in  the 
foreground  as  “the  sign  between  God  and  Israel.” 4  In 
ancient  Israel  and  in  the  Judean  commonwealth  the  Abra- 
hamitic  rite  formed  the  initiation  into  the  nationality  for 
aliens  and  slaves,  by  which  they  were  made  full-fledged  Jews. 
With  the  dispersion  of  the  Jewish  people  over  the  globe,  and 
the  influence  of  Hellenism,  Judaism  created  a  propaganda  in 
favor  of  a  world-wide  religion  of  “God-fearing”  men  pledged 
to  the  observance  of  the  Noahitic  or  humanitarian  laws. 
Rabbinism  in  Palestine  called  such  a  one  Ger  T oshab  —  so¬ 
journer,  or  semi-proselyte ;  while  the  full  proselyte  who  ac¬ 
cepted  the  Abrahamitic  rite  was  called  Ger  Zedek,  or  proselyte 
of  righteousness.5  Not  only  the  Hellenistic  writings,  but  also 
the  Psalms,  the  liturgy,  and  the  older  Rabbinical  literature 

1  Jer.  XXXI,  30-32,  34-35;  XXXIII,  25;  Deut.  XXIX,  14. 

2  See  Ep.  Hebrews  VIII,  8  f. ;  Gal.  Ill,  15;  I  Cor.  XI,  25;  Matt.  XXIV, 
2t,  and  parallels. 

3  Gen.  XVII,  n. 

4  Ex.  XXXI,  13-17;  comp.  Deut.  X,  16;  Josh.  V,  9;  Isa.  LVI,  4-6.  See 
Mek.  to  Ex.  XIX,  5,  the  controversy  between  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Akiba,  whether 
the  Sabbath  or  circumcision  was  the  essential  sign  of  the  covenant. 

5  Ker.  9  a ;  Yeb.  45-48  and  see  Chapter  LVI  below. 


GOD’S  COVENANT 


5i 


give  evidence  of  such  a  propaganda,1  but  it  may  be  traced 
back  as  far  as  Deutero-Isaiah,  during  the  reign  of  Cyrus.  His 
outlook  toward  a  Jewish  religion  which  should  be  at  the  same 
time  a  religion  of  all  the  world,  is  evident  when  he  calls  Israel 
“a  mediator  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  the  nations,’’ 
a  “  light  to  the  peoples,”  —  a  regenerator  of  humanity.2 

5.  This  hope  of  a  universal  religion,  which  rings  through 
the  Psalms,  the  Wisdom  books  and  the  Hellenistic  literature, 
was  soon  destined  to  grow  faint.  The  perils  of  Judaism  in 
its  great  struggles  with  the  Syrian  and  Roman  empires  made 
for  intense  nationalism,  and  the  Jewish  covenant  shared  this 
tendency.  The  early  Christian  Church,  the  successor  of  the 
missionary  activity  of  Hellenistic  Judaism,  labored  also  at 
first  for  the  Noahitic  covenant.3  Pauline  Christianity,  how¬ 
ever,  with  a  view  to  tearing  down  the  barrier  between  Jew 
and  Gentile,  proclaimed  a  new  covenant,  whose  central  idea 
is  belief  in  the  atoning  power  of  the  crucified  son  of  God.4 
Indeed,  one  medieval  Rabbinical  authority  holds  that  we 
are  to  regard  Christians  as  semi-proselytes,  as  they  practically 
observe  the  Noahitic  laws  of  humanity.5 

6.  Progressive  Judaism  of  our  own  time  has  the  great  task 
of  re-emphasizing  Israel’s  world-mission  and  of  reclaiming 
for  Judaism  its  place  as  the  priesthood  of  humanity.  It  is 
to  proclaim  anew  the  prophetic  idea  of  God’s  covenant  with 
humanity,  whose  force  had  been  lost,  owing  to  inner  and 
outer  obstacles.  Israel,  as  the  people  of  the  covenant,  aims 
to  unite  all  nations  and  classes  of  men  in  the  divine  covenant. 
It  must  outlast  all  other  religions  in  its  certainty  that  ulti¬ 
mately  there  can  be  but  the  one  religion,  uniting  God  and 
man  by  a  single  bond.6 


1  Ps.  XXII,  28  f. ;  CXV,  11 ;  CXVIII,  4 ;  Is.  LVI,  6. 

2  Isaiah  XLIX,  6-8.  3  Acts  XV,  20,  29. 

4  See  J.  E.,  art.  Saul  of  Tarsus;  Enc.  Rel.  Eth.  art.  Paul. 

5  Isaac  ben  Shesheth:  Responsa,  119.  Comp.  J.  E.,  art.  Christianity. 

6  See  further,  Chapter  XLIX. 


B.  TEE  IDEA  OF  GOD  IN  JUDAISM 


CHAPTER  IX 
God  and  the  Gods 

1.  Judaism  centers  upon  its  sublime  and  simple  concep¬ 
tion  of  God.  This  lifts  it  above  all  other  religions  and 
satisfies  in  unique  measure  the  longing  for  truth  and  inner 
peace  amidst  the  futility  and  incessant  changes  of  earthly 
existence.  This  very  conception  of  God  is  in  striking  contrast 
to  that  of  most  other  religions.  The  God  of  Judaism  is  not 
one  god  among  many,  nor  one  of  many  powers  of  life,  but  is 
the  One  and  holy  God  beyond  all  comparison.  In  Him  is 
concentrated  all  power  and  the  essence  of  all  things ;  He  is 
the  Author  of  all  existence,  the  Ruler  of  life,  who  lays  down  the 
laws  by  which  man  shall  live.  As  the  prophet  says  to  the 
heathen  world:  “The  gods  that  have  not  made  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,  these  shall  perish  from  the  earth  and  from  under 
the  heavens.  .  .  .  Not  like  these  is  the  portion  of  Jacob ; 
for  He  is  the  Former  of  all  things.  .  .  .  The  Lord  is  the  true 
God ;  He  is  the  living  God  and  the  everlasting  King ;  at  His 
wrath  the  earth  trembleth,  and  the  nations  are  not  able  to 
abide  His  indignation.”  1 

2.  This  lofty  conception  of  the  Deity  forms  the  essence  of 
Judaism  and  was  its  shield  and  buckler  in  its  lifelong  contest 
with  the  varying  forms  of  heathenism.  From  the  very  first 
the  God  of  Judaism  declared  war  against  them  all,  whether  at 

1  Jer.  X,  ii  ;  16  and  io. 

S* 


GOD  AND  THE  GODS 


53 


any  special  time  the  prevailing  form  was  the  worship  of  many 
gods,  or  the  worship  of  God  in  the  shape  of  man,  the  per¬ 
version  of  the  purity  of  God  by  sensual  concepts,  or  the  di¬ 
vision  of  His  unity  into  different  parts  or  personalities.  The 
Talmudic  saying  is  most  striking:  “From  Sinai,  the  Mount 
of  revelation  of  the  only  God,  there  came  forth  Sinah,  the 
hostility  of  the  nations  toward  the  Jew  as  the  banner-bearer 
of  the  pure  idea  of  God.”  1  Just  as  day  and  night  form  a 
natural  contrast,  divinely  ordained,  so  do  the  monotheism  of 
Israel  and  the  polytheism  of  the  nations  constitute  a  spiritual 
contrast  which  can  never  be  reconciled. 

3.  The  pagan  gods,  and  to  some  extent  the  triune  God  of 
the  Christian  Church,  semi-pagan  in  origin  also,  are  the  out¬ 
come  of  the  human  spirit’s  going  astray  in  its  search  for  God. 
Instead  of  leading  man  upwards  to  an  ideal  which  will  encom¬ 
pass  all  material  and  moral  life  and  lift  it  to  the  highest  stage  of 
holiness,  paganism  led  to  depravity  and  discord.  The  un¬ 
relenting  zeal  displayed  by  prophet  and  law-giver  against 
idolatry  had  its  chief  cause  in  the  immoral  and  inhuman  prac¬ 
tices  of  the  pagan  nations  —  Canaan,  Egypt,  Assyria,  and 
Babylon  —  in  the  worship  of  their  deities.2  The  deification  of 
the  forces  of  nature  brutalized  the  moral  sense  of  the  pagan 
world ;  no  vice  seemed  too  horrible,  no  sacrifice  too  atrocious 
for  their  cults.  Baal,  or  Moloch,  the  god  of  heaven,  de¬ 
manded  in  times  of  distress  the  sacrifice  of  a  son  by  the 
father.  Astarte,  the  goddess  of  fecundity,  required  the 
“hallowing”  of  life’s  origin,  and  this  was  done  by  the  most 
terrible  of  sexual  orgies.  Such  abominations  exerted  their  se¬ 
ductive  influence  upon  the  shepherd  tribes  of  Israel  in  their 
new  home  in  Canaan,  and  thus  aroused  the  fiercest  indignation 
of  prophet  and  law-giver,  who  hurled  their  vials  of  wrath 
against  those  shocking  rites,  those  lewd  idols,  and  those  who 

1  Shab.  89  b. 

2  Lev.  XVIII,  2,  27  f. ;  Num.  XXV,  3-8;  Hos.  IV,  10;  V,  4. 


54 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


“whored  after  them.”  1  If  Israel  was  to  be  trained  to  be 
the  priest  people  of  the  Only  One  in  such  an  environment, 
tolerance  of  such  practices  was  out  of  the  question.  Thus  in 
the  Sinaitic  law  God  is  spoken  of  as  “  the  jealous  God”  2  who 
punishes  unrelentingly  every  violation  of  His  laws  of  purity 
and  holiness. 

4.  The  same  sharp  contrast  of  Jewish  ethical  and  spiritual 
monotheism  remained  also  when  it  came  in  contact  with  the 
Graeco-Syrian  and  Roman  culture.  Here,  too,  the  myths 
and  customs  of  the  cult  and  the  popular  religion  offended  by 
their  gross  sensuality  the  chaste  spirit  of  the  Jewish  people. 
Indeed,  these  were  all  the  more  dangerous  to  the  purity  of 
social  life,  as  they  were  garbed  with  the  alluring  beauty  of 
art  and  philosophy.3  The  Jew  then  felt  all  the  more  the 
imperative  duty  to  draw  a  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between 
Judaism  with  its  chaste  and  imageless  worship  and  the  las¬ 
civious,  immoral  life  of  paganism. 

5.  This  wide  gulf  which  yawned  between  Israel’s  One  and 
holy  God  and  the  divinities  of  the  nations  was  not  bridged 
over  by  the  Christian  Church  when  it  appeared  on  the  stage 
of  history  and  obtained  world-dominion.  For  Christianity 
in  its  turn  succeeded  by  again  dragging  the  Deity  into  the 
world  of  the  senses,  adopting  the  pagan  myths  of  the  birth 
and  death  of  the  gods,  and  sanctioning  image  worship.  In 
this  way  it  actually  created  a  Christian  plurality  of  gods  in 
place  of  the  Graeco-Roman  pantheon ;  indeed,  it  presented  a 
divine  family  after  the  model  of  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian 
religions,4  and  thus  pushed  the  ever-living  God  and  Father  of 
mankind  into  the  background.  This  tendency  has  never  been 

1  Num.  XV,  39;  Ex.  XXIII,  24;  Deut.  XX,  18;  Sanh.  XII,  5;  X,  4-6; 
Ab.  Zar.  II-IV ;  Sanh.  106  a :  “Israel’s  God  hates  lewdness.” 

2  Ex.  XX,  5  ;  Deut.  IV,  24;  VI,  15. 

3  See  Philo :  De  Humanitate ;  Doellinger :  Heidenthum  u.  Judenthum,  682, 
700  f. ;  I.  H.  Weiss  :  Dor  Dor  we  Doreshav,  II,  19  f . 

4  See  J.  E.,  art.  Christianity. 


GOD  AND  THE  GODS 


55 


explained  away,  even  by  the  attempts  of  certain  high-minded 
thinkers  among  the  Church  fathers.  Judaism,  however,  in¬ 
sists,  as  ever,  upon  the  words  of  the  Decalogue  which  con¬ 
demn  all  attempts  to  depict  the  Deity  in  human  or  sensual 
form,  and  through  all  its  teachings  there  is  echoed  forth  the 
voice  of  Him  who  spoke  through  the  seer  of  the  Exile:  “I 
am  the  Lord,  that  is  My  name,  and  My  glory  will  I  not  give 
to  another,  neither  My  praise  to  graven  images. ”  1 

6.  When  Moses  came  to  Pharaoh  saying,  “Thus  speaketh 
JHVH  the  God  of  Israel,  send  off  My  people  that  they  may 
serve  Me,”  Pharaoh  —  so  the  Midrash  tells  —  took  his  list 
of  deities  to  hand,  looked  it  over,  and  said,  “Behold,  here  are 
enumerated  the  gods  of  the  nations,  but  I  cannot  find  thy  God 
among  them.”  To  this  Moses  replied,  “All  the  gods  known 
and  familiar  to  thee  are  mortal,  as  thou  art ;  they  die,  and 
their  tomb  is  shown.  The  God  of  Israel  has  nothing  in  com¬ 
mon  with  them.  He  is  the  living,  true,  and  eternal  God  who 
created  heaven  and  earth ;  no  people  can  withstand  His  wrath.” 2 
This  passage  states  strikingly  the  difference  between  the  God 
of  Judaism  and  the  gods  of  heathendom.  The  latter  are  but 
deified  powers  of  nature,  and  being  parts  of  the  world,  them¬ 
selves  at  one  with  nature,  they  are  subject  to  the  power  of 
time  and  fate.  Israel’s  God  is  enthroned  above  the  world 
as  its  moral  and  spiritual  Ruler,  the  only  Being  whom  we  can 
conceive  as  self-existent,  as  indivisible  as  truth  itself. 

7.  As  long  as  the  pagan  conception  prevailed,  by  which 
the  world  was  divided  into  many  divine  powers,  there  could 
be  no  conception  of  the  idea  of  a  moral  government  of  the  uni¬ 
verse,  of  an  all-encompassing  purpose  of  life.  Consequently 

1  Isa.  XLII,  8.  Scripture  always  emphasizes  the  contrast  between  Israel’s 
God  and  the  heathen  gods.  See  Ex.  XII,  12;  XV,  n;  XVIII,  11;  Deut. 
X,  17;  also  in  the  prophets,  Isa.  XL;  XLIV,  9;  Jer.  X;  and  the  Psalms, 
XCVI,  CXV,  CXXXV.  Absolute  monotheism  was  a  slow  growth  from  this 
basis. 

2  See  Ex.  R.  V,  18. 


5^ 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  great  thinkers  and  moralists  of  heathendom  were  forced 
to  deny  the  deities,  before  they  could  assert  either  the  unity  of 
the  cosmos  or  a  design  in  life.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  pre¬ 
cisely  this  recognition  of  the  moral  nature  of  God,  as  manifested 
both  in  human  life  and  in  the  cosmic  sphere,  which  brought 
the  Jewish  prophets  and  sages  to  their  pure  monotheism,  in 
which  they  will  ultimately  be  met  by  the  great  thinkers  of 
all  lands  and  ages.  The  unity  of  God  brings  harmony  into 
the  intellectual  and  moral  world ;  the  division  of  the  godhead 
into  different  powers  or  personalities  leads  to  discord  and 
spiritual  bondage.  Such  is  the  lesson  of  history,  that  in  poly¬ 
theism,  dualism,  or  trinitarianism  one  of  the  powers  must 
necessarily  limit  or  obscure  another.  In  this  manner  the 
Christian  Trinity  led  mankind  in  many  ways  to  the  lowering 
of  the  supreme  standard  of  truth,  to  an  infringement  on  justice, 
and  to  inhumanity  to  other  creeds,  and  therefore  Judaism 
could  regard  it  only  as  a  compromise  with  heathenism. 

8.  Judaism  assumed,  then,  toward  paganism  an  attitude 
of  rigid  exclusion  and  opposition  which  could  easily  be  taken 
for  hostility.  This  prevailed  especially  in  the  legal  systems 
of  the  Bible  and  the  rabbis,  and  was  intended  primarily  to 
guard  the  monotheistic  belief  from  pagan  pollution  and  to 
keep  it  intact.  Neither  in  the  Deuteronomic  law  nor  in  the 
late  codes  of  Maimonides  and  Joseph  Caro  is  there  any  tol¬ 
eration  for  idolatrous  practices,  for  instruments  of  idol-wor¬ 
ship,  or  for  idolaters.1  This  attitude  gave  the  enemies  of 
the  Jew  sufficient  occasion  for  speaking  of  the  Jewish  God  as 
hating  the  world,  as  if  only  national  conceit  underlay  the 
earnest  rigor  of  Jewish  monotheism. 

9.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  since  the  time  of  the  prophets  Juda¬ 
ism  has  had  no  national  God  in  any  exclusive  sense.  While 
the  Law  insists  upon  the  exclusive  worship  of  the  one  God  of 

1  Deut.  VII;  XVII,  2  f. ;  XX,  16;  Maimonides:  H.  Akkum,  II-VII; 
Melakim,  VI,  4;  Yoreh  Deah,  CXII-XLVIII. 


GOD  AND  THE  GODS 


57 


Israel,  the  narratives  of  the  beginnings  in  the  Bible  have  a 
different  tenor.  They  take  the  lofty  standpoint  that  the 
heathen  world,  while  worshiping  its  many  divinities,  had 
merely  lost  sight  of  the  true  God  after  whom  the  heart  ever 
longs  and  searches.  This  implies  that  a  kernel  of  true  piety 
underlies  all  the  error  and  delusion  of  paganism,  which, 
rightly  guided,  will  lead  back  to  the  God  from  whom  mankind 
had  strayed.  The  Godhead,  divided  into  gods  —  as  is  hinted 
even  in  the  Biblical  name,  Elohim  —  must  again  become  the 
one  God  of  humanity.  Thus  the  Jew  holds  that  all  worship 
foreshadows  the  search  for  the  true  God,  and  that  all  hu¬ 
manity  shall  at  one  time  acknowledge  Him  for  whom  they 
have  so  long  been  searching.  Surely  the  Psalms  express,  not 
national  narrowness,  but  ardent  love  for  humanity  when 
they  hail  the  God  of  Israel,  the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth, 
as  the  world’s  great  King,  and  tell  how  He  will  judge  the 
nations  in  justice,  while  the  gods  of  the  nations  will  be  rejected 
as  “ vanities.”  1  Nor  does  the  divine  service  of  the  Jew  bear 
the  stamp  of  clannishness.  For  more  than  two  thousand 
years  the  central  point  in  the  Synagogue  liturgy  every  morn¬ 
ing  and  evening  has  been  the  battle-cry,  “Hear,  0  Israel,  the 
Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is  One.”  And  so  does  the  conclusion 
of  every  service,  the  Alenu ,  the  solemn  prayer  of  adoration, 
voice  the  grand  hope  of  the  Jew  for  the  future,  that  the  time 
may  speedily  come  when  “before  the  kingdom  of  Almighty 
all  idolatry  shall  vanish,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 
perceive  that  unto  Him  alone  every  knee  must  bend,  and  all 
flesh  recognize  Him  alone  as  God  and  King.”  2 

1  Ps.  XCVI-XCIX. 

2  See  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  p.  76-77,  and  J.  E.,  art.  Alenu. 


CHAPTER  X 


The  Name  of  God 


? 


1.  Primitive  men  attached  much  importance  to  names, 
for  to  them  the  name  of  a  thing  indicated  its  nature,  and 
through  the  name  one  could  obtain  mastery  over  the  thing  or 
person  named.  Accordingly,  the  name  of  God  was  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  the  manifestation  of  His  being ;  by  invoking  it 
man  could  obtain  some  of  His  power;  and  the  place  where 
that  name  was  called  became  the  seat  of  His  presence.  There¬ 
fore  the  name  must  be  treated  with  the  same  reverential  awe 
as  the  Deity  Himself.  None  dare  approach  the  Deity,  nor 
misuse  the  Name.  The  pious  soul  realized  the  nearness  of 
the  Deity  in  hearing  His  name  pronounced.  Finally,  the 
different  names  of  God  reflect  the  different  conceptions  of 
Him  which  were  held  in  various  periods.1 

2.  The  Semites  were  not  like  the  Aryan  nations,  who  be¬ 
held  the  essence  of  their  gods  in  the  phenomena  of  nature  such 
as  light,  rain,  thunder,  and  lightning,  —  and  gave  them  cor¬ 
responding  names  and  titles.  The  more  intense  religious 
emotionalism  of  the  Semites  2  perceived  the  Godhead  rather 
as  a  power  working  from  within,  and  accordingly  gave  it  such 
names  as  El  (“the  Mighty  One”),  Eloha  or  Pahad  (“the 
Awful  One”),  or  Baal  (“the  Master”).  Elohirn ,  the  plural 
form  of  Eloha ,  denoted  originally  the  godhead  as  divided  into 
a  number  of  gods  or  godly  beings,  that  is,  polytheism.  When 

1  See  Cheyne’s  Diet.  Bibl.,  art.  Name  and  Names  with  Bibliography ;  Jacob  : 
Im  Namen  Gottes;  Heitmueller,  Im  NamenJesu,  1903,  p.  24-25.  The  Name  for 
the  Lord  occurs  Lev.  XXIV,  11, 16 ;  Deut.  XXVIII,  58 ;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  261  f. 

2  See  Baudissin,  Stud.  z.  Sem.  Religions gesch.,  I,  47;  177;  Robinson  Smith : 
Religion  of  the  Semites;  Max  Mueller,  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop ,  I, 
336-374. 

58 


THE  NAME  OF  GOD 


59 


it  was  applied  to  God,  however,  it  was  generally  understood 
as  a  unity,  referring  to  one  undivided  Godhead,  for  Scrip¬ 
ture  regarded  monotheism  as  original  with  mankind.  While 
this  view  is  contradicted  by  the  science  of  comparative  re¬ 
ligion,  still  the  ideal  conception  of  religion,  based  on  the 
universal  consciousness  of  God,  postulates  one  God  who  is 
the  aim  of  all  human  searching,  a  fact  which  the  term  Heno- 
theism  fails  to  recognize.1 

3.  For  the  patriarchal  age,  the  preliminary  stage  in  the 
development  of  the  Jewish  God-idea,  Scripture  gives  a  special 
name  for  God,  El  Shaddai  —  “the  Almighty  God.”  This 
probably  has  a  relation  to  Shod,  “storm”  or  “havoc”  and 
“  destruction,”  but  was  interpreted  as  supreme  Ruler  over  the 
celestial  powers.2  The  name  by  which  God  revealed  Himself 
to  Moses  and  the  prophets  as  the  God  of  the  covenant  with 
Israel  is  JHVH  (Jahveh).  This  name  is  inseparably  con¬ 
nected  with  the  religious  development  of  Judaism  in  all  its 
loftiness  and  depth.  During  the  period  of  the  Second  Temple 
this  name  was  declared  too  sacred  for  utterance,  except  by 
the  priests  in  certain  parts  of  the  service,  and  for  mysterious 
use  by  specially  initiated  saints.  Instead,  Adonai  —  “the 
Lord”  —  was  substituted  for  it  in  the  Biblical  reading,  a 
usage  which  has  continued  for  over  two  thousand  years. 
The  meaning  of  the  name  in  pre-Mosaic  times  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fiery  storms  which  accompanied  each  theophany  in 
the  various  Scriptural  passages,  as  well  as  from  the  root 
havah,  which  means  “throw  down”  and  “overthrow.” 3 

» 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  God.  Comp,  also  Encycl.  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  art.  God. 
Primitive  and  Biblical ;  Name  of  God,  Jewish. 

2  Gen.  XVII,  n;  Ex.  VI,  3,  and  commentators;  Gen.  R.  XLVI.  The 
Book  of  Job,  where  the  name  Shaddai  is  constantly  used,  refers  to  the  patriarchal 
age. 

3  Ex.  Ill,  14,  and  commentators,  espec.  Dillmann.  Comp.  art.  Jahweh  in 
Prot.  Realencyc.  and  Cheyne’s  Diet.  Bible,  art.  Names,  §  109  ff.,  where  different 
etymologies  are  given. 


6o 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


To  the  prophets,  however,  the  God  of  Sinai,  enthroned  amid 
clouds  of  storm  and  fire,  moving  before  His  people  in  war 
and  peace,  appeared  rather  as  the  God  of  the  Covenant,  with¬ 
out  image  or  form,  unapproachable  in  His  holiness.  As  the 
original  meaning  of  JHVH  had  become  unintelligible,  they 
interpreted  the  name  as  “the  ever  present  One,”  in  the  sense 
of  Ehyeh  as  her  Ehyeh ,  “I  shall  be  whatever  (or  wherever)  I 
am  to  be  ”  ;  that  is,  “I  am  ever  ready  to  help.”  Thus  spoke 
God  to  Moses  in  revealing  His  name  to  him  at  the  burning 
bush.1 

4.  The  prophetic  genius  penetrated  more  and  more  into 
the  nature  of  God,  recognizing  Him  as  the  Power  who  rules 
in  justice,  mercy,  and  holiness.  This  process  brought  them 
to  identify  JHVH,  the  God  of  the  covenant,  with  the  One 
and  only  God  who  overlooks  all  the  world  from  his  heavenly 
habitation,  and  gives  it  plan  and  purpose.  At  the  same  time, 
all  the  prophets  revert  to  the  covenant  on  Sinai  in  order  to 
proclaim  Israel  as  the  herald  and  witness  of  God  among  the 
nations.  In  fact,  the  God  of  the  covenant  proclaimed  His 
universality  at  the  very  beginning,  in  the  introduction  to  the 
Decalogue :  “Ye  shall  be  Mine  own  peculiar  possession  from 
among  all  peoples,  for  all  the  earth  is  Mine.  And  ye  shall 
be  unto  Me  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation.”  2  In 
other  words,  —  you  have  the  special  task  of  mediator  among 
the  nations,  all  of  which  are  under  My  dominion. 

5.  In  the  Wisdom  literature  and  the  Psalms  the  God  of 
the  covenant  is  subordinated  to  the  universality  of  JHVH  as 
Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  world.  In  a  number  of  the  Psalms 
and  in  some  later  writings  the  very  name  JHVH  was  avoided 
probably  on  account  of  its  particularistic  tinge.  It  was 
surrounded  more  and  more  with  a  certain  mystery.  Instead, 
God  as  the  “Lord”  is  impressed  on  the  consciousness  and 
adoration  of  men,  in  all  His  sublimity  and  in  absolute  unity. 

1  Ex.  Ill,  14.  2  Ex.  XIX,  s,  6. 


THE  NAME  OF  GOD 


61 


The  “Name”  continues  its  separate  existence  only  in  the 
mystic  lore.  The  name  Jehovah ,  however,  has  no  place  what¬ 
soever  in  Judaism.  It  is  due  simply  to  a  misreading  of  the 
vowel  signs  that  refer  to  the  word  Adonai ,  and  has  been 
erroneously  adopted  in  the  Christian  literature  since  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.1 

6.  Perhaps  the  most  important  process  of  spiritualization 
which  the  idea  of  God  underwent  in  the  minds  of  the  Jewish 
people  was  made  when  the  name  JHVH  as  the  proper  name  of 
the  God  of  the  covenant  was  given  up  and  replaced  by  Adonai 
—  “the  Lord.”  As  long  as  the  God  of  Israel,  like  other 
deities,  had  His  proper  name,  he  was  practically  one  of  them, 
however  superior  in  moral  worth.  As  soon  as  He  became 
the  Lord,  that  is,  the  only  real  God  over  all  the  world,  a  dis¬ 
tinctive  proper  noun  was  out  of  place.  Henceforth  the 
name  was  invested  with  a  mysterious  and  magic  character. 
It  became  ineffable,  at  least  to  the  people  at  large,  and  its 
pronunciation  sinful,  except  by  the  priests  in  the  liturgy. 
In  fact,  the  law  was  interpreted  so  as  directly  to  forbid  this 
utterance.2  Thus  JHVH  is  no  longer  the  national  God  of 
Israel.  The  Talmud  guards  against  the  very  suspicion  of  a 
“  Judaized  God”  by  insisting  that  every  benediction  to  Him  as 
“  God  the  Lord”  must  add  “King  of  the  Universe”  rather  than 
the  formula  of  the  Psalms,  “God  of  Israel.”  3 

7.  The  Midrash  makes  a  significant  comment  on  the  words 
of  the  Shema:  “Why  do  the  words,  The  Lord  is  our  God’ 
precede  the  words,  ‘the  Lord  is  One’?  Does  not  the  par¬ 
ticularism  of  the  former  conflict  with  the  universalism  of  the 
latter  sentence  ?  No.  The  former  expresses  the  idea  that  the 
Lord  is  ‘our  God’  just  so  far  as  His  name  is  more  intertwined 

1  See  Prot.  Enc.,  art.  Jahveh,  p.  530  f. 

2  See  J.  E.,  art.  Adonai;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  352  f. 

3  Ber.  40  b.  On  the  alleged  “  Judaisirung  des  Gottesbegriffs,”  see  Weber, 
1.  c.,  148-158. 


62 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


with  our  history  than  with  that  of  any  other  nation,  and 
that  we  have  the  greater  obligation  as  His  chosen  people. 
Wherever  Scripture  speaks  of  the  God  of  Israel,  it  does  not 
intend  to  limit  Him  as  the  universal  God,  but  to  emphasize 
Israel’s  special  duty  as  His  priest-people^’ 1 

8.  Likewise  is  the  liturgical  name  “God  of  our  fathers” 
far  from  being  a  nationalistic  limitation.  On  the  contrary, 
the  rabbis  single  out  Abraham  as  the  missionary,  the  herald 
of  monotheism  in  its  march  to  world-conquest.  For  his  use 
of  the  term,  “the  God  of  heaven  and  the  God  of  the  earth”  2 
they  offer  a  characteristic  explanation:  “Before  Abraham 
came,  the  people  worshiped  only  the  God  of  heaven,  but 
Abraham  by  winning  them  for  his  God  brought  Him  down 
and  made  Him  also  the  God  of  the  earth.”  3 

9.  Reverence  for  the  Deity  caused  the  Jew  to  avoid  not 
only  the  utterance  of  the  holy  Name  itself,  but  even  the  com¬ 
mon  use  of  its  substitute  Adonai.  Therefore  still  other 
synonyms  were  introduced,  such  as  “Master  of  the  universe,” 
“the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,”  “the  Merciful  One,”  “the 
Omnipotence”  (ha  Geburah ),4  “King  of  the  kings  of  kings” 
(under  Persian  influence — as  the  Persian  ruler  called  himself 
the  King  of  Kings) ; 5  and  in  Hasidean  circles  it  became  cus¬ 
tomary  to  invoke  God  as  “our  Father”  and  “our  Father 
in  heaven.”  6  The  rather  strange  appellations  for  God, 
“Heaven”  7  and  (dwelling)  “Place”  (ha  Makom)  seem  to 
originate  in  certain  formulas  of  the  oath.  In  the  latter 
name  the  rabbis  even  found  hints  of  God’s  omnipresence : 
“As  space  —  Makom  —  encompasses  all  things,  so  does  God 
encompass  the  world  instead  of  being  encompassed  by  it.”  8 

1  Sifre  to  Deut.  VI,  4.  2  Gen.  XXIV,  3.  3  Gen.  R.  XXIV,  3. 

4  Shab.  87  a,  89  b ;  Mek.  Yithro  IV.  5  See  J.  E.,  art.  Alenu. 

6  See  J.  E.,  art.  Abba  and  Names  of  God;  Weber,  1.  c.,  148  f. ;  Bousset, II, 
356-361;  Schechter:  Aspects,  II,  21-28. 

7  See  J.  E.,  art.  Heaven;  Levy,  W.  B. :  “Shamayim.” 

8  See  Pes.  X,  5;  Ber.  16  b;  Ab.  Zar.  40  b;  Gen.  R.  LXVIII,  9,  referring 


THE  NAME  OF  GOD 


63 


10.  The  rabbis  early  read  a  theological  meaning  into  the 
two  names  JHVH  and  Elohim ,  taking  the  former  as  the 
divine  attribute  of  mercy  and  the  latter  as  that  of  justice} 
In  general,  however,  the  former  name  was  explained  ety¬ 
mologically  as  signifying  eternity,  “He  who  is,  who  was,  and 
who  shall  be.”  Philo  shows  familiarity  with  the  two  attri¬ 
butes  of  justice  and  mercy,  but  he  and  other  Alexandrian 
writers  explained  JHVH  and  Ehyeh  metaphysically,  and 
accordingly  called  God,  “the  One  who  is,”  that  is,  the  Source 
of  all  existence.  Both  conceptions  still  influence  Jewish  exe¬ 
gesis  and  account  for  the  term  “the  Eternal”  sometimes 
used  for  “the  Lord.” 

to  Gen.  XXVIII,  11  and  Ex.  XXXIII,  21;  P.  d.  R.  El.  XXXV;  Pes.  Rab. 
104  a;  comp.  LXX,  Ex.  XXIV,  10;  see  also  Siegfried:  Philo ,  p.  202,  204, 
217;  Schechter,  1.  c.,  26,  34.  The  passage  in  Mekilta  on  Ex.  XVII,  7,  which 
refers  Makom  to  the  Sanhedrin  (after  Deut.  XVII,  8),  seems  originally  to  have 
been  a  marginal  note  belonging  to  Ex.  XXI,  13,  where  Makom  is  the  equivalent 
of  Makam,  a  place  of  refuge,  and  put  here  at  the  wrong  place  by  an  error;  — 
Against  Schechter,  1.  c.  27  note  1,  Bousset  (p.  591)  thinks  that  ha  Makom 
for  God  is  Persian,  where  both  space  and  time  were  deified.  See  Spiegel : 
Eranisches  AUerthum,  II,  15  f. 

1  See  Gen.  R.  XII,  15 ;  XXX,  3 ;  Targum  to  Psalm  LVI,  n ;  comp.  Philo, 
I,  496;  Siegfried,  1.  c.,  203,  213. 


CHAPTER  XI 


The  Existence  of  God 

i.  For  the  religious  consciousness,  God  is  not  to  be  dem¬ 
onstrated  by  argument,  but  is  a  fact  of  inner  and  outer  ex¬ 
perience.  Whatever  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  cosmos 
may  be  according  to  natural  science,  the  soul  of  man  follows 
its  natural  bent,  as  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  to  look  through 
nature  to  the  Maker,  Ordainer,  and  Ruler  of  all  things,  who 
uses  the  manifold  world  of  nature  only  as  His  workshop, 
and  who  rules  it  in  freedom  as  its  sovereign  Master.  The 
entire  cosmic  life  points  to  a  Supreme  Being  from  whom 
all  existence  must  have  arisen,  and  without  whom  life  and 
process  would  be  impossible.  Still  even  this  mode  of  thought 
is  influenced  and  determined  by  the  prevalent  monotheistic 
conceptions. 

Far  more  original  and  potent  in  man  is  the  feeling  of  limi¬ 
tation  and  dependency.  This  brings  him  to  bow  down  before 
a  higher  Power,  at  first  in  fear  and  trembling,  but  later  in 
holy  awe  and  reverence.  As  soon  as  man  attains  self-con¬ 
sciousness  and  his  will  acquires  purpose,  he  encounters  a  will 
stronger  than  his  own,  with  which  he  often  comes  into  conflict, 
and  before  which  he  must  frequently  yield.  Thus  he  becomes 
conscious  of  duty  —  of  what  he  ought  and  ought  not  to  do. 
This  is  not,  like  earlier  limitations,  purely  physical  and 
working  from  without ;  it  is  moral  and  operates  from  within. 
It  is  the  sense  of  duty,  or,  as  we  call  it,  conscience ,  the  sense 
of  right  and  wrong.  This  awakened  very  early  in  the  race, 

64 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD  65 

and  through  it  God’s  voice  has  been  perceived  ever  since  the 
days  of  Adam  and  of  Cain.1 

‘  2.  According  to  Scripture,  man  in  his  natural  state  pos¬ 
sesses  the  certainty  of  God’s  existence  through  such  inner 
experience.  Therefore  the  Bible  contains  no  command  to 
believe  in  God,  nor  any  logical  demonstration  of  His  existence. 
Both  the  Creation  stories  and  those  of  the  beginnings  of  man¬ 
kind  assume  as  undisputed  the  existence  of  God  as  the  Cre¬ 
ator  and  Judge  of  the  world.  Arguments  appealing  to  reason 
were  resorted  to  only  in  competition  with  idolatry,  as  in  Deu¬ 
teronomy,  Jeremiah,  and  Deutero-Isaiah,  and  subsequently 
by  the  Haggadists  in  legends  such  as  those  about  Abraham. 
Nor  does  the  Bible  consider  any  who  deny  the  existence  of 
God ; 2  only  much  later,  in  the  Talmud,  do  we  hear  of  those 
who  “deny  the  fundamental  principle”  of  the  faith.  The 
doubt  expressed  in  Job,  Koheleth,  and  certain  of  the  Psalms, 
concerns  rather  the  justice  of  God  than  His  existence.  True, 
Jeremiah  and  the  Psalms3  mention  some  who  say  “There  is 
no  God,”  but  these  are  not  atheists  in  our  sense  of  the  word ; 
they  are  the  impious  who  deny  the  moral  order  of  life  by  word 
or  deed.  It  is  the  villain  ( Nabal ) ,  not  the  “fool  ”  who  “  says  in 
his  heart,  there  is  no  God.”  Even  the  Talmud  does  not  mean 
the  real  atheist  when  speaking  of  “the  denier  of  the  funda¬ 
mental  principle,”  but  the  man  who  says,  “There  is  neither 
a  judgment  nor  a  Judge  above  and  beyond.”  4  In  other  words, 
the  “denier”  is  the  same  as  the  Epicurean  (Apicoros),  who 
refuses  to  recognize  the  moral  government  of  the  world.5 

3.  After  the  downfall  of  the  nation  and  Temple,  the  situ¬ 
ation  changed  through  the  contemptuous  question  of  the 

1  Metaphysical  proofs  for  God’s  existence  have  been  outlawed  since  Kant. 
God  is  the  postulate  of  man’s  moral  consciousness.  See  Rauwenhoff,  1.  c.,  236- 
357. 

2  See  art.  Atheism,  in  J.  E.  and  in  Enc.  Reli.  and  Ethics,  II,  18  f. 

3  Jer.  V,  12;  Psalm  X,  4;  XIV,  1;  LIII,  1. 

4  B.  B.  16  b;  Targ.  to  Gen.  IV,  8.  6  See  above,  Chapter  IV,  3. 


66 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


nations,  “Where  is  your  God?”  Then  the  necessity  be¬ 
came  evident  of  proving  that  the  Ruler  of  nations  still  held 
dominion  over  the  world,  and  that  His  wondrous  powers 
were  shown  more  than  ever  before  through  the  fact  of  Israel’s 
preservation  in  captivity.  This  is  the  substance  of  the  ad¬ 
dresses  of  the  great  seer  of  the  Exile  in  chapters  XL  to  LIX 
of  Isaiah,  in  which  he  exposes  the  gods  of  heathendom  to 
everlasting  scorn,  more  than  any  other  prophet  before  or 
afterward.  He  declares  these  deities  to  be  vanity  and  naught, 
but  proclaims  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  as  the  Lord  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.  He  hath  “  meted  out  the  heavens  with  the  span,”  and 
“  weighed  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the  hills  in  a  balance.” 
Before  Him  “the  nations  are  as  a  drop  of  the  bucket,”  and 
“  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  as  grasshoppers.”  “He  bringeth 
out  the  hosts  of  the  stars  by  number,  and  calleth  them  all  by 
name,”  “He  hath  assigned  to  the  generations  of  men  their 
lot  from  the  beginning,  and  knoweth  at  the  beginning  what 
will  be  their  end.”  1  Measured  by  such  passages  as  these  and 
such  as  Psalms  VIII,  XXIV,  XXXIII,  CIV,  and  CXXXIX, 
where  God  is  felt  as  a  living  power,  all  philosophical  argu¬ 
ments  about  His  existence  seem  to  be  strange  fires  on  the  altar 
of  religion.  The  believer  can  do  without  them,  and  the  un¬ 
believer  will  hardly  be  convinced  by  them. 

4.  Upon  the  contact  of  the  Jew  with  Greek  philosophy 
doubt  arose  in  many  minds,  and  belief  entered  into  conflict 
with  reason.  But  even  then,  the  defense  of  the  faith  was 
still  carried  on  by  reasoning  along  the  lines  of  common  sense.2 
Thus  the  regularity  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  —  all  wor¬ 
shiped  by  the  pagans  as  deities  —  was  considered  a  proof  of 
God’s  omnipotence  and  rule  of  the  universe,  a  proof  which 
the  legend  ascribes  to  Abraham  in  his  controversy  with 
Nimrod.3  In  like  manner,  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Wisdom  4 


AIsa.  XL,  12-26;  XL VI,  10. 
3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Abraham. 


2  See  Bousset,  1.  c.,  295-298. 
4  Ch.  XIII. 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 


67 


says  that  true  wisdom,  as  opposed  to  the  folly  of  heathenism, 
is  “to  reason  from  the  visible  to  the  Invisible  One,  and  from 
the  cosmos,  the  great  work  of  art,  to  the  Supreme  Artificer.” 

5.  Philo  was  the  first  who  tried  to  refute  the  “atheistic” 
views  of  materialists  and  pantheists  by  adducing  proofs  of 
God’s  existence  from  nature  and  the  human  intellect.  In 
the  former  he  pointed  out  order  as  evidence  of  the  wisdom 
underlying  the  cosmos,  and  in  the  latter  the  power  of  self- 
determination  as  shadowing  forth  a  universal  mind  which 
determines  the  entire  universe.1  Still,  with  his  mystical 
attitude,  Philo  realized  that  the  chief  knowledge  of  God  is 
through  intuition,  by  the  inner  experience  of  the  soul. 

6.  Two  proofs  taken  from  nature  owe  their  origin  to 
Greek  philosophy.  Anaxagoras  and  Socrates,  from  their 
theory  of  design  in  nature,  deduced  that  there  is  a  universal 
intelligence  working  for  higher  aims  and  purposes.  This  so- 
called  teleological  proof,  as.  worked  out  in  detail  by  Plato, 
was  the  unfailing  reliance  of  subsequent  philosophers  and 
theologians.2  Plato  and  Aristotle,  moreover,  from  the 
continuous  motion  of  all  matter,  inferred  a  prime  cause,  an 
unmoved  mover.  This  is  the  so-called  cosmological  proof, 
used  by  different  schools  in  varying  forms.3  It  occupies  the 
foremost  place  in  the  systems  of  the  Arabic  Aristotelians, 
and  consequently  is  dominant  among  the  Jewish  philosophers, 
the  Christian  scholastics,  and  in  the  modern  philosophic 
schools  down  to  Kant.  It  is  based  upon  the  old  principle 
of  causality,  and  therefore  takes  the  mutability  and  relativity 
of  all  beings  in  the  cosmos  as  evidence  of  a  Being  that  is 
immutable,  unconditioned,  and  absolutely  necessary,  causa 
sui,  the  prime  cause  of  all  existence. 

1  Philo :  He  Somniis,  I,  43,  44 ;  Zeller :  D.  Philosophie  d.  Griechen,  III,. 
2,  307  f. ;  Drummond:  Philo  Jndceus,  II,  4-5. 

2  See  D.  F.  Strauss:  Christl.  Glaubenslehre,  I,  364-399;  Windelband :  Hist, 
of  Phil.,  transl.  by  J.  H.  Tufts,  2d  ed.,  1914,  p.  54,  98,  128,  327. 

3  See  Windelband-Tufts,  1.  c.,  145,  292. 


68 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


7.  The  Mohammedan  theologians  added  a  new  element  to 
the  discussion.  In  their  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  world 
is  the  work  of  a  Creator,  they  pointed  as  evidence  to  the 
multiformity  and  composite  structure,  the  contingency  and 
dependency  of  the  cosmos ;  thus  they  concluded  that  it  must 
have  been  created,  and  that  its  Creator  must  necessarily  be 
the  one,  absolute,  and  all-determining  cause.  This  proof  is 
used  also  by  Saadia  and  Bahya  ben  Joseph.1  Its  weakness, 
however,  was  exposed  by  Ibn  Sina  and  Alfarabi  among  the 
Mohammedans,  and  later  by  Abraham  ibn  Daud  and  Mai- 
monides,  their  Jewish  successors  as  Aristotelians.  These 
proposed  a  substitute  argument.  From  the  fact  that  the 
existence  of  all  cosmic  beings  is  merely  possible,  —  that  is, 
they  may  exist  and  they  may  not  exist,  —  these  thinkers  con¬ 
cluded  that  an  absolutely  necessary  being  must  exist  as  the 
cause  and  condition  of  all  things,  and  this  absolutely  un¬ 
conditioned  yet  all-conditioning  being  is  God,  the  One  who 
is.2  Of  course,  the  God  so  deduced  and  inferred  is  a  mere 
abstraction,  incapable  of  satisfying  the  emotional  craving  of 
the  heart. 

8.  While  the  cosmological  proof  proceeds  from  the  tran¬ 
sitory  and  imperfect  nature  of  the  world,  the  ontological  proof, 
first  proposed  by  Anselm  of  Canterbury,  the  Christian  scholas¬ 
tic  of  the  XI  century,  and  further  elaborated  by  Descartes 
and  Mendelssohn,  proceeds  from  the  human  intellect.  The 
mind  conceives  the  idea  of  God  as  an  absolutely  perfect  being, 
and,  as  there  can  be  no  perfection  without  existence,  the  con¬ 
clusion  is  that  this  idea  must  necessarily  be  objectively  true. 
Then,  as  the  idea  of  God  is  innate  in  man,  God  must  neces¬ 
sarily  exist,  —  and  for  proof  of  this  they  point  to  the  Scriptural 
verse,  “The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart,  there  is  no  God,” 

1  See  Strauss,  1.  c. ;  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  2-3,  58;  D.  Theologie  d.  Bachya ,  p. 
222  f. ;  Husik  :  Hist.  Jew.  Phil.,  p.  32  ff.,  89  ff. 

2  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  p.  341  f.,  431  f. ;  Husik,  1.  c.,  218  f.,  254  f. 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 


69 


and  other  similar  passages.  In  its  improved  form,  this  ar¬ 
gument  uses  the  human  concept  of  an  infinitely  perfect  God 
as  evidence,  or,  at  least,  as  postulate  that  such  a  Being  exists 
beyond  the  finite  world  of  man.1 

.Another  argument,  rather  naive  in  character,  which  was 
favored  by  the  Stoics  and  adopted  by  the  Church  fathers,  is 
called  de  consensu  gentium ,  and  endeavored  to  prove  the  re¬ 
ality  of  God’s  existence  from  the  universality  of  His  worship. 
It  speaks  well  for  the  sound  reasoning  of  the  Jewish  thinkers 
that  they  refused  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  Mohammedans  in 
this  respect,  and  did  not  avail  themselves  of  an  argument 
which  can  be  used  just  as  easily  in  support  of  a  plurality 
of  gods.2 

9.  All  these  so-called  proofs  were  invalidated  by  Immanuel 
Kant,  the  great  philosopher  of  Konigsberg,  whose  critical  in¬ 
quiry  into  the  human  intellect  showed  that  the  entire  sum  of 
our  knowledge  of  objects  and  also  of  the  formulation  of  our 
ideas  is  based  upon  our  limited  mode  of  apperception,  while 
the  reality  or  essence,  “the  thing  in  itself,”  will  ever  remain 
beyond  our  ken.  If  this  is  true  of  physical  objects,  it  is  all 
the  more  true  of  God,  whom  we  know  through  our  minds 
alone  and  not  at  all  through  our  five  senses.  Accordingly, 
he  shows  that  all  the  metaphysical  arguments  have  no  basis, 
and  that  we  can  know  God’s  existence  only  through  ethics , 
as  a  postulate  of  our  moral  nature.  The  inner  consciousness 
of  our  moral  obligation,  or  duty,  implies  a  moral  order  of  life, 
or  moral  law;  and  this,  in  turn,  postulates  the  existence  of 
God,  the  Ruler  of  life,  who  assigns  to  each  of  us  his  task  and 
his  destiny.3 

10.  It  is  true  that  God  is  felt  and  worshiped  first  as  the 
supreme  power  in  the  world,  before  man  perceives  Him  as 

1  See  D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c. ;  Windelband-Tufts,  p.  292,  393. 

2  D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  375,  394;  Windelband-Tufts,  1.  c.,  450. 

3  See  Windelband-Tufts,  1.  c.,  549-550. 


70 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  highest  ideal  of  morality.  Therefore  man  will  never 
cease  looking  about  him  for  vestiges  of  divinity  and  for  proofs 
of  his  intuitive  knowledge  of  God.  The  wondrous  order, 
harmony,  and  signs  of  design  in  nature,  as  well  as  the  impulse 
of  the  reason  to  search  for  the  unity  of  all  things,  corroborate 
this  innate  belief  in  God.  Still  more  do  the  consciousness 
of  duty  in  the  individual  —  conscience  —  and  the  progress  of 
history  with  its  repeated  vindication  of  right  and  defeat  of 
wrong  proclaim  to  the  believer  unmistakably  that  the  God 
of  justice  reigns.  But  no  proof,  however  convincing,  will 
ever  bring  back  to  the  skeptic  or  unbeliever  the  God  he  has 
lost,  unless  his  pangs  of  anguish  or  the  void  within  fill  his 
desolate  world  anew  with 'the  vivifying  thought  of  a  living  God. 

n.  Among  all  the  Jewish  religious  philosophers  the  high¬ 
est  rank  must  be  accorded  to  Jehudah  ha  Levi,  the  author  of 
the  Cuzari,1  who  makes  the  historical  fact  of  the  divine  reve¬ 
lation  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish  religion  and  the  chief  tes¬ 
timony  of  the  existence  of  God.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  reason 
alone  will  not  lead  to  God,  except  where  religious  intuition 
forms,  so  to  speak,  the  ladder  of  heaven,  leading  to  the  realm 
of  the  unknowable.  Philosophy,  at  best,  can  only  demon¬ 
strate  the  existence  of  a  final  Cause,  or  of  a  supreme  Intelli¬ 
gence  working  toward  sublime  purposes ;  possibly  also  a  moral 
government  of  the  world,  in  both  the  physical  and  the  spiritual 
life.  Religion  alone,  founded  upon  divine  revelation,  can 
teach  man  to  find  a  God,  to  whom  he  can  appeal  in  trust  in 
his  moments  of  trouble  or  of  woe,  and  whose  will  he  can  see  in 
the  dictates  of  conscience  and  the  destiny  of  nations.  Reason 
must  serve  as  a  corrective  for  the  contents  of  revelation, 
scrutinizing  and  purifying,  deepening  and  spiritualizing  ever 
anew  the  truths  received  through  intuition,  but  it  can  never 
be  the  final  source  of  truth. 

1  See  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  p.  223  f.,  and,  opposed  to  him,  Neumark :  Jehuda 
Halevi’s  Philosophy ,  Cincinnati,  1909.  See  also  Husik,  1.  c.,  157  ff. 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD 


7i 


12.  The  same  method  must  apply  also  to  modern  thought 
and  research,  which  substituted  historical  methods  for  meta¬ 
physics  in  both  the  physical  and  intellectual  world,  and  which 
endeavors  to  trace  the  origin  and  growth  of  both  objects  and 
ideas  in  accordance  with  fixed  laws.  The  process  of  evolu¬ 
tion,  our  modern  key  with  which  to  unlock  the  secrets  of 
nature,  points  most  significantly  to  a  Supreme  Power  and 
Energy.  But  this  energy,  entering  into  the  cosmic  process  at 
its  outset,  causing  its  motion  and  its  growth,  implies  also  an 
end,  and  thus  again  we  have  the  Supreme  Intelligence  reached 
through  a  new  type  of  teleology.1  But  all  these  conceptions, 
however  they  may  be  in  harmony  with  the  Jewish  belief  in 
creation  and  revelation,  can  at  best  supplement  it,  but  can 
certainly  neither  supplant  nor  be  identified  with  it. 

1  Compare  C.  Seligman  :  Judenth.  u.  moderne  Anschauung.  The  philosophy 
of  Bergson,  which  eliminates  design  and  purpose  from  the  cosmos  and  places 
Deity  itself  into  the  process  as  the  vital  urgent  of  it  all,  and  thus  sees  God  forever 
in  the  making,  is  pantheistic  and  un- Jewish,  and  therefore  cannot  be  considered 
in  a  theology  of  Judaism.  This  does  not  exclude  our  accepting  minor  elements 
of  his  system,  which  contains  suggestive  hints.  H.  G.  Wells’  God  the  Invisible 
King  (Macmillan,  1917)  is  likewise  a  God  in  the  making,  man-made,  not  the 
Maker  and  Ruler  of  man. 


CHAPTER  XII 


The  Essence  of  God 

1.  An  exquisite  Oriental  fable  tells  of  a  sage  who  had  been 
meditating  vainly  for  days  and  weeks  on  the  question,  What 
is  God?  One  day,  walking  along  the  seashore,  he  saw  some 
children  busying  themselves  by  digging  holes  in  the  sand  and 
pouring  into  them  water  from  the  sea.  “What  are  you  doing 
there?’’  he  asked  them,  to  which  they  replied,  “We  want  to 
empty  the  sea  of  its  water.”  “Oh,  you  little  fools,”  he  ex¬ 
claimed  with  a  smile,  but  suddenly  his  smile  vanished  in  serious 
thought.  “Am  I  not  as  foolish  as  these  children?”  he  said 
to  himself.  “How  can  I  with  my  small  brain  hope  to  grasp  the 
infinite  nature  of  God  ?  ” 

All  efforts  of  philosophy  to  define  the  essence  of  God  are 
futile.  “Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God?”  Zophar 
asks  of  his  friend  Job.1  Both  Philo  and  Maimonides  main¬ 
tain  that  we  can  know  of  God  only  that  He  is;  we  can  never 
fathom  His  innermost  being  or  know  what  He  is.  Both  find 
this  unknowability  of  God  expressed  in  the  words  spoken  to 
Moses:  “If  I  withdraw  My  hand,  thou  shalt  see  My  back 
—  that  is,  the  effects  of  God’s  power  and  wisdom  —  but  My 
face  —  the  real  essence  of  God  —  thou  shalt  not  see.”  2 

2.  Still,  a  divinity  void  of  all  essential  qualities  fails  to 
satisfy  the  religious  soul.  Man  demands  to  know  what  God 
is  —  at  least,  what  God  is  to  him.  In  the  first  word  of  the 

1  Job  XI,  7. 

2  Ex.  XXXIII,  23  ;  Maim.;  Yesode  ha  Torah,  I,  8, 10;  Moreh,  I,  21  a ;  Kauf- 
mann,  1.  c.,  431 ;  Philo:  Mutatio  Nom.,  2;  Vita  Mosis,  I,  28;  Leg.  All.,  I,  29, 
and  elsewhere.  See  J.  Drummond:  Philo  Judaus,  II,  18-24. 

72 


THE  ESSENCE  OF  GOD 


73 


Decalogue  God  speaks  through  His  people  Israel  to  the  reli¬ 
gious  consciousness  of  all  men  at  all  times,  beginning,  “I  am 
the  Lord,  thy  God.”  This  word  /  lifts  God  at  once  above 
all  beings  and  powers  of  the  cosmos,  in  fact,  above  all  other 
existence,  for  it  expresses  His  unique  self-consciousness.  This 
attribute  above  all  is  possessed  by  no  being  in  the  world  of 
nature,  and  only  by  man,  who  is  the  image  of  his  Maker. 
According  to  the  Midrash,  all  creation  was  hushed  when  the 
Lord  spoke  on  Sinai,  “I  am  the  Lord.”  1  God  is  not  merely 
the  supreme  Being,  but  also  the  supreme  Self-consciousness. 
As  man,  in  spite  of  all  his  limitations  and  helplessness,  still 
towers  high  above  all  his  fellow  creatures  by  virtue  of  his  free 
will  and  self-conscious  action,  so  God,  who  knows  no  bounds 
to  His  wisdom  and  power,  surpasses  all  beings  and  forces  of 
the  universe,  for  He  rules  over  all  as  the  one  completely  self- 
conscious  Mind  and  Will.  In  both  the  visible  and  invisible 
realms  He  manifests  Himself  as  the  absolutely  free  Personality, 
moral  and  spiritual,  who  allots  to  every  thing  its  existence, 
form,  and  purpose.  For  this  reason  Scripture  calls  Him 
“the  living  God  and  everlasting  King.”  2 

3.  Judaism,  accordingly,  teaches  us  to  recognize  God, 
above  all,  as  revealing  Himself  in  self-conscious  activity,  as 
determining  all  that  happens  by  His  absolutely  free  will,  and 
thus  as  showing  man  how  to  walk  as  a  free  moral  agent.  In 
relation  to  the  world,  His  work  or  workshop,  He  is  the  self- 
conscious  Master,  saying  “I  am  that  which  I  am”;  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  man,  who  is  akin  to  Him  as  a  self-conscious  rational 
and  moral  being,  He  is  the  living  Fountain  of  all  that  knowl¬ 
edge  and  spirituality  for  which  men  long,  and  in  which  alone 
they  may  find  contentment  and  bliss. 

Thus  the  God  of  Judaism,  the  world’s  great  I  Am,  forms  a 
complete  contrast,  not  only  to  the  lifeless  powers  of  nature 
and  destiny,  which  were  worshiped  by  the  ancient  pagans, 
1  Ex.  R.  XXIX,  at  the  close.  2  Jer.  X,  10. 


74 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


but  also  to  the  God  of  modern  paganism,  a  God  divested  of  all 
personality  and  self-consciousness,  such  as  He  is  conceived 
of  by  the  new  school  of  Christian  theology,  with  its  pantheistic 
tendency.  I  refer  to  the  school  of  Ritschl,  which  strives  to 
render  the  myth  of  the  man-god  philosophically  intelligible  by 
teaching  that  God  reaches  self-consciousness  only  in  the  per¬ 
fect  type  of  man,  that  is,  Christ,  while  otherwise  He  is  entirely 
immanent,  one  with  the  world.  All  the  more  forcibly  does 
Jewish  monotheism  insist  upon  its  doctrine  that  God,  in  His 
continual  self-revelation,  is  the  supermundane  and  self- 
conscious  Ruler  of  both  nature  and  history.  “I  am  the  Lord, 
that  is  My  name,  and  My  glory  will  I  not  give  to  another, ” 
—  so  says  the  God  of  Judaism.1 

4.  The  Jewish  God-idea,  of  course,  had  to  go  through  many 
stages  of  development  before  it  reached  the  concept  of  a 
transcendental  and  spiritual  god.  It  was  necessary  first  that 
the  Decalogue  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  prohibit  most 
stringently  polytheism  and  every  form  of  idolatry,  and  second 
that  a  strictly  imageless  worship  impress  the  people  with  the 
idea  that  Israel’s  God  was  both  invisible  and  incorporeal.2 
Yet  a  wide  step  still  intervened  from  that  stage  to  the  complete 
recognition  of  God  as  a  purely  spiritual  Being,  lacking  all 
qualities  perceptible  to  the  senses,  and  not  resembling  man 
in  either  his  inner  or  his  outer  nature.  Centuries  of  gradual 
ripening  of  thought  were  still  necessary  for  the  growth  of  this 
conception.  This  was  rendered  still  more  difficult  by  the 
Scriptural  references  to  God  in  His  actions  and  His  revelations, 
and  even  in  His  motives,  after  a  human  pattern.  Israel’s 
sages  required  centuries  of  effort  to  remove  all  anthropo¬ 
morphic  and  anthropopathic  notions  of  God,  and  thus  to 
elevate  Him  to  the  highest  realm  of  spirituality.3 

1  Isaiah  XLIV,  6. 

2  Comp.  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  226-235;  D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  I,  525-553. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Anthropomorphism  and  Anthropopathism.  Comp, 
Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  1-30. 


THE  ESSENCE  OF  GOD 


75 


5.  In  this  process  of  development  two  points  of  view  de¬ 
mand  consideration.  We  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the 
perfectly  clear  distinction  which  we  make  between  the  sen¬ 
sory  and  the  spiritual  does  not  appeal  to  the  child-like  mind, 
which  sees  it  rather  as  external.  What  we  call  transcendent, 
owing  to  our  comprehension  of  the  immeasurable  universe, 
was  formerly  conceived  only  as  far  remote  in  space  or  time. 
Thus  God  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  dwelling  in  heaven  and 
looking  down  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  to  judge  them 
and  to  guide  them.1  According  to  Deuteronomy,  God  spoke 
from  heaven  to  the  people  about  Mt.  Sinai,  while  Exodus 
represents  Him  as  coming  down  to  the  mountain  from  His 
heavenly  heights  to  proclaim  the  law  amid  thunder  and 
lightning.2  The  Babylonian  conception  of  heaven  prevailed 
throughout  the  Middle  Ages  and  influenced  both  the  mystic 
lore  about  the  heavenly  throne  and  the  philosophic  cosmology 
of  the  Aristotelians,  such  as  Maimonides.  Yet  Scripture 
offers  also  another  view,  the  concept  of  God  as  the  One  en¬ 
throned  on  high,  whom  “the  heavens  and  the  heaven’s  heavens 
cannot  encompass.”  3 

The  fact  is  that  language  still  lacked  an  expression  for  pure 
spirit,  and  the  intellect  freed  itself  only  gradually  from  the 
restrictions  of  primitive  language  to  attain  a  purer  conception 
of  the  divine.  Thus  we  attain  deeper  insight  into  the  spiritual 
nature  of  God  when  we  read  the  inimitable  words  of  the 
Psalmist  describing  His  omnipresence,4  or  that  other  passage : 
“  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  He  not  hear  ?  He  that  formed 
the  eye,  shall  He  not  see?  He  that  chastiseth  the  nations, 
shall  He  not  correct,  even  He  that  teaches  man  knowledge  ?  ”  5 

The  translators  and  interpreters  of  the  Bible  felt  the  need 
of  eliminating  everything  of  a  sensory  nature  from  God  and 

1  Ps.  XXXIII,  13-14. 

2  Deut.  IV,  36 ;  Ex.  XIX,  20.  Comp.  Gen.  XI,  5.  8  Isa.  XL VI,  1. 

* Ps.  CXXXIX,  7-10.  6  Ps.  XCIV,  9. 


76 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  avoiding  anthropomorphism,  through  the  influence  of 
Greek  philosophy.  This  spiritualization  of  the  God  idea  was 
taken  up  again  by  the  philosophers  of  the  Spanish-Arabic 
period,  who  combated  the  prevailing  mysticism.  Through 
them  Jewish  monotheism  emphasized  its  opposition  to  every 
human  representation  of  God,  especially  the  God-Man  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

6.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  we 
naturally  ascribe  to  God  a  human  personality,  whether  we 
speak  of  Him  as  the  Master-worker  of  the  universe,  as  the  all- 
seeing  and  all-hearing  Judge,  or  the  compassionate  and  merci¬ 
ful  Father.  We  cannot  help  attributing  human  qualities  and 
emotions  to  Him  the  moment  we  invest  Him  with  a  moral 
and  spiritual  nature.  When  we  speak  of  His  punitive  justice, 
His  unfailing  mercy,  or  His  all-wise  providence,  we  transfer 
to  Him,  imperceptibly,  our  own  righteous  indignation  at  the 
sight  of  a  wicked  deed,  or  our  own  compassion  with  the 
sufferer,  or  even  our  own  mode  of  deliberation  and  decision. 
Moreover,  the  prophets  and  the  Torah,  in  order  to  make  God 
plain  to  the  people,  described  Him  in  vivid  images  of  human 
life,  with  anger  and  jealousy  as  well  as  compassion  and  re¬ 
pentance,  and  also  with  the  organs  and  functions  of  the 
senses,  —  seeing,  hearing,  smelling,  speaking,  and  walking. 

7.  The  rabbis  are  all  the  more  emphatic  in  their  assertions 
that  the  Torah  merely  intends  to  assist  the  simple-minded, 
and  that  unseemly  expressions  concerning  Deity  are  due  to 
the  inadequacy  of  language,  and  must  not  be  taken  literally.1 
“It  is  an  act  of  boldness  allowed  only  to  the  prophets  to  meas¬ 
ure  the  Creator  by  the  standard  of  the  creature,”  says  the 
Haggadist,  and  again,  “God  appeared  to  Israel,  now  as  a 
heroic  warrior,  now  as  a  venerable  sage  imparting  knowledge, 
and  again  as  a  kind  dispenser  of  bounties,  but  always  in  a 

1  See  Ab.  d.  R.  Nathan  II;  Bacher:  D.  Exegetische  Terminologie ,  I,  8; 
Schechter,  1.  c.,  35. 


THE  ESSENCE  OF  GOD 


77 


manner  befitting  the  time  and  circumstance,  so  as  to  satisfy 
the  need  of  the  human  heart.”  1  This  is  strikingly  illustrated 
in  the  following  dialogue:  “A  heretic  came  to  Rabbi  Meir 
asking,  ‘How  can  you  reconcile  the  passage  which  reads, 
“Do  I  not  fill  heaven  and  earth,  says  the  Lord,”  with  the  one 
which  relates  that  the  Lord  appeared  to  Moses  between  the 
cherubim  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant?’  Whereupon  Rabbi 
Meir  took  two  mirrors,  one  large  and  the  other  small,  and 
placed  them  before  the  interrogator.  ‘Look  into  this  glass,’ 
he  said,  ‘and  into  that.  Does  not  your  figure  seem  different 
in  one  than  in  the  other?  How  much  more  will  the  majesty 
of  God,  who  has  neither  figure  nor  form,  be  reflected  differently 
in  the  minds  of  men !  To  one  it  will  appear  according  to  his 
narrow  view  of  life,  and  to  the  other  in  accordance  with  his 
larger  mental  horizon.’”  2 

In  like  manner  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Hanania,  when  asked 
sarcastically  by  the  Emperor  Hadrian  to  show  him  his  God, 
replied :  “Come  and  look  at  the  sun  which  now  shines  in  the 
full  splendor  of  noonday !  Behold,  thou  art  dazzled.  How, 
then,  canst  thou  see  without  bewilderment  the  majesty  of 
Him  from  whom  emanates  both  sun  and  stars?”  3  This  re¬ 
joinder,  which  was  familiar  to  the  Greeks  also,  is  excelled  by 
the  one  of  Rabban  Gamaliel  II  to  a  heathen  who  asked  him 
“Where  does  the  God  dwell  to  whom  you  daily  pray?” 
“Tell  me  first,”  he  answered,  “where  does  your  soul  dwell, 
which  is  so  close  to  thee?  Thou  canst  not  tell.  How,  then, 
can  I  inform  thee  concerning  Him  who  dwells  in  heaven,  and 
whose  throne  is  separated  from  the  earth  by  a  journey  of 
3500  years?”  “Then  do  we  not  do  better  to  pray  to  gods 
who  are  near  at  hand,  and  whom  we  can  see  with  our  eyes?” 

1  Gen.  R.  XXVII;  Mek.  Ex.  XV;  Pes.  d.  R.  K.  109  b;  Tanh.  to  Ex.  XXII, 
16;  Schechter,  1.  c.,  43  f. 

2  Gen.  R.  IV,  3 ;  comp.  Pes.  d.  R.  K.  2  b ;  Schechter,  1.  c.,  29  f. 

3  Hul.  59,  60;  Sanh.  39  a;  Philo :  De  Abrahamo,  16. 


78 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


continued  the  heathen,  whereupon  the  sage  struck  home, 
“Well,  you  may  see  your  gods,  but  they  neither  see  nor  help 
you,  while  our  God,  Himself  unseen,  yet  sees  and  protects  us 
constantly.”  1  The  comparison  of  the  invisible  soul  to  God, 
the  invisible  spirit  of  the  universe,  is  worked  out  further  in 
the  Midrash  to  Psalm  CIIX. 

8.  From  the  foregoing  it  is  clear  that,  while  Judaism  in¬ 
sists  on  the  Deity’s  transcending  all  finite  and  sensory  limi¬ 
tations,  it  never  lost  the  sense  of  the  close  relationship  between 
man  and  his  Maker.  Notwithstanding  Christian  theologians 
to  the  contrary,  the  Jewish  God  was  never  a  mere  abstraction.2 
The  words,  “I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,”  betoken  the  intimate 
relation  between  the  redeemed  and  the  heavenly  Redeemer, 
and  the  song  of  triumph  at  the  Red  Sea,  “This  is  my  God,  I 
will  extol  Him,”  testifies  —  according  to  the  Midrash  —  that 
even  the  humblest  of  God’s  chosen  people  were  filled  with 
the  feeling  of  His  nearness.3  In  the  same  way  the  warm 
breath  of  union  with  God  breathes  through  all  the  writings, 
the  prayers,  and  the  whole  history  of  Judaism.  “For  what 
great  nation  is  there  that  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them  as  the 
Lord  our  God  is,  whenever  we  call  upon  Him?”  exclaims 
Moses  in  Deuteronomy,  and  the  rabbis,  commenting 
upon  the  plural  form  used  here,  Kerobim ,  =  “nigh,”  remark  : 
“God  is  nigh  to  everyone  in  accordance  with  his  special 
needs.”  4 

9.  Probably  the  rabbis  were  at  their  most  profound  mood 
in  their  saying,  “God’s  greatness  lies  in  His  condescension, 
as  may  be  learned  from  the  Torah,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Writ¬ 
ings.  To  quote  only  Isaiah  also :  ‘  Thus  saith  the  High  and 

1  Mid.  Teh.  Ps.  CIII,  1 ;  Sanh.  39  a. 

2  See  Weber,  1.  c.,  149  f.,  157 ;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  302,  313 ;  von  Hartman  :  Das 
religioese  Bewusstsein.  Against  this  Schreiner,  1.  c.,  49-58,  and  Schechter,  As¬ 
pects,  33  f. 

8  Mek.  and  Tanh.  to  Ex.  XV,  n. 

4  Deut.  IV,  7 ;  Yer.  Ber.  IX,  13  a. 


THE  ESSENCE  OF  GOD 


79 


Lofty  One,  I  dwell  in  high  and  holy  places,  with  him  that  is 
of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit.’ 1  For  this  reason  God  selected 
as  the  place  of  His  revelation  the  humble  Sinai  and  the  lowly 
thornbush.” 2  In  fact,  the  absence  of  any  mediator  in 
Judaism  necessitates  the  doctrine  that  God  —  with  all  His 
transcendent  majesty  —  is  at  the  same  time  “an  ever  present 
helper  in  trouble,”  3  and  that  His  omnipotence  includes  care 
for  the  greatest  and  the  smallest  beings  of  creation.4 

io.  The  doctrine  that  God  is  above  and  beyond  the  uni¬ 
verse,  transcending  all  created  things,  as  well  as  time  and 
space,  might  lead  logically  to  the  view  of  the  deist  that  He 
stands  outside  of  the  world,  and  does  not  work  from  within. 
But  this  inference  has  never  been  made  even  by  the  boldest 
of  Jewish  thinkers.  The  Psalmist  said,  “Who  is  like  the  Lord 
our  God,  that  hath  His  seat  on  high,  that  humbleth  Himself 
to  behold  what  is  in  heaven  and  on  earth?”  5  —  words  which 
express  the  deepest  and  the  loftiest  thought  of  Judaism. 
Beside  the  all-encompassing  Deity  no  other  divine  power  or 
personality  can  find  a  place.  God  is  in  all ;  He  is  over  all ; 
He  is  both  immanent  and  transcendent.  His  creation  was 
not  merely  setting  into  motion  the  wheels  of  the  cosmic  fabric, 
after  which  He  withdrew  from  the  world.  The  Jew  praises 
Him  for  every  scent  and  sight  of  nature  or  of  human  life,  for 
the  beauty  of  the  sea  and  the  rainbow,  for  every  flash  of  light¬ 
ning  that  illumines  the  darkened  clouds  and  every  peal  of 
thunder  that  shakes  the  earth.  On  every  such  occasion  the 
Jew  utters  praise  to  “Him  who  daily  renews  the  work  of 
creation,”  or  “Him  who  in  everlasting  faithfulness  keepeth 
His  covenant  with  mankind.”  Such  is  the  teaching  of  the 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,6  and  the  charge  of  the  Jewish 

1  Isa.  LVII,  15.  See  also  Deut.  X,  17-18;  Ps.  LXXXVI,  5-6.  Comp.  R. 
Johanan,  Meg.  31  a. 

2  Ex.  R.  II,  9;  Mid.  Teh.  Ps.  LXVIII,  7.  8  Ps.  XLVI,  2. 

4  Ab.  Zar.  3  b.  6  Ps.  CXIII,  5,  6. 

6  Ber.  60  b.  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  291. 


So 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


God  idea  being  a  barren  and  abstract  transcendentalism  can 
be  urged  only  by  the  blindness  of  bigotry.1 

n.  The  interweaving  of  the  ideas  of  God’s  immanence  and 
transcendency  is  shown  especially  in  two  poems  embodied  in 
the  songs  of  the  Synagogue,  Ibn  Gabirol’s  “  Crown  of  Royalty” 
and  the  “ Songs  of  Unity”  for  each  day  of  the  week,  composed 
by  Samuel  ben  Kalonymos,  the  father  of  Judah  the  Pious  of 
Regensburg.  Here  occur  such  sentences  as  these:  “All  is  in 
God  and  God  is  in  all”;  “Sufficient  unto  Himself  and  self- 
determining,  He  is  the  ever-living  and  self-conscious  Mind, 
the  all-permeating,  all-impelling,  and  all-accomplishing  Will”  ; 
“The  universe  is  the  emanation  of  the  plenitude  of  God,  each 
part  the  light  of  His  infinite  light,  flame  of  His  eternal  em¬ 
pyrean”  ;  “The  universe  is  the  garment,  the  covering  of  God, 
and  He  the  all-penetrating  Soul.”  2  All  these  ideas  were 
borrowed  from  neo-Platonism,  and  found  a  conspicuous  place 
in  Ibn  Gabirol’s  philosophy,  later  influencing  the  Cabbalah. 

Similarly  the  appellation,  Makom,  “Space,”  is  explained  by 
both  Philo  and  the  rabbis  as  denoting  “Him  who  encompasses 
the  world,  but  whom  the  world  cannot  encompass.”  3  An 
utterance  such  as  this,  well-nigh  pantheistic  in  tone,  leads 
directly  to  theories  like  those  of  Spinoza  or  of  David  Nieto, 
the  well-known  London  Rabbi,  who  was  largely  under  Spino- 
zistic  influence 4  and  who  still  was  in  accord  with  Jewish 
thought.  Certainly,  as  long  as  Jewish  monotheism  conceives 
of  God  as  self-conscious  Intellect  and  freely  acting  Will,  it 
can  easily  accept  the  principle  of  divine  immanence. 

12.  We  accept,  then,  the  fact  that  man,  child-like,  invests 
God  with  human  qualities,  —  a  view  advanced  by  Abraham 

1  On  pantheism  in  Judaism  see  Seligman,  1.  c. 

2  See  Sachs :  D.  religioese  Poesie  d.  Juden.  in  Spanien,  225-228 ;  Kaufmann  : 
Stud.  u.  Solomon  Ibn  Gabirol. 

3  See  Siegfried:  Philo ,  199-203,  292;  Gen.  R.  LXVIII,  10;  comp.  Geiger: 
Zeitschr.,  XI,  218;  Hamburger:  R.  W.  B.,  II,  986. 

4  See  Graetz :  G.  d.  J.,  X,  319. 


THE  ESSENCE  OF  GOD 


81 


ben  David  of  Posquieres  in  opposition  to  Maimonides.1 
Still,  the  thinkers  of  Judaism  have  ever  labored  to  divest  the 
Deity  of  every  vestige  of  sensuousness,  of  likeness  to  man,  in 
fact,  of  every  limitation  to  action  or  to  free  will.  Every  con¬ 
ception  which  merges  God  into  the  world  or  identifies  Him 
with  it  and  thus  makes  Him  subject  to  necessity,  is  incom¬ 
patible  with  the  Jewish  idea  of  God,  which  enthrones  Him 
above  the  universe  as  its  free  and  sovereign  Master.  “Am  I 
a  God  near  at  hand,  saith  the  Lord,  and  not  a  God  afar  off? 
Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret  places  that  I  shall  not  see  him  ? 
saith  the  Lord.  Do  I  not  fill  heaven  and  earth?”2  “To 
whom  will  you  liken  Me,  that  I  should  be  equal?”  3 

1  See  Maimonides:  H.  Teshubah ,  III,  7  and  R.  A.  B.  D.,  notes. 

2  Jer.  XXIII,  23.  8  Isa.  XL,  25. 


G 


A 


CHAPTER  XIII 


The  One  and  Only  God 

1.  From  the  very  beginning  no  Jewish  doctrine  was  so 
firmly  proclaimed  and  so  heroically  defended  as  the  belief  in 
the  One  and  Only  God.  This  constitutes  the  essence  and 
foundation  of  Judaism.  However  slowly  the  people  learned 
that  there  could  be  no  gods  beside  the  One  God,  and  that 
consequently  all  the  pagan  deities  were  but  “naught  and 
vanity/’  the  Judaism  of  the  Torah  starts  with  the  proclama¬ 
tion  of  the  Only  One,  and  later  Judaism  marches  through  the 
nations  and  ages  of  history  with  a  never-silent  protest  against 
polytheism  of  every  kind,  against  every  division  of  the  God¬ 
head  into  parts,  powers,  or  persons. 

2.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  divine  pedagogy  could  not  well 
have  demanded  of  a  people  immature  and  untrained  in  re¬ 
ligion,  like  Israel  in  the  wilderness  period,  the  immediate- 
belief  in  the  only  one  God  and  in  none  else.  Such  a  belief  is 
the  result  of  a  long  mental  process ;  it  is  attained  only  after 
centuries  of  severe  struggle  and  crisis.  Instead  of  this,  the 
Decalogue  of  Sinai  demanded  of  the  people  that  they  worship 
only  the  God  of  the  Covenant  who  had  delivered  them  from 
Egypt  to  render  them  His  people.1  But,  as  they  yielded  more 
and  more  to  the  seductive  worship  of  the  gods  of  the  Canaanites 
and  their  other  neighbors,  the  law  became  more  rigid  in  pro¬ 
hibiting  such  idolatrous  practices,  and  the  prophets  poured 
forth  their  unscathing  wrath  against  the  “stiff-necked  people” 

1  Lev.  XIX,  4 ;  XXVI,  i ;  Isaiah  II,  8,  1 1 ;  Psalm  XCVI,  5. 


THE  ONE  AND  ONLY  GOD  83 

and  endeavored  by  unceasing  warnings  and  threats  to  win 
them  for  the  pure  truth  of  monotheism.1 

3.  The  God  of  Sinai  proclaims  Himself  in  the  Decalogue 
as  a  “jealous  God/’  and  not  in  vain.  He  cannot  tolerate 
other  gods  beside  Himself.  Truth  can  make  no  concession 
to  untruth,  nor  enter  into  any  compromise  with  it  without 
self-surrender.  A  pagan  religion  could  well  afford  to  admit 
foreign  gods  into  its  pantheon  without  offending  the  ruling 
deities  of  the  land.  On  the  contrary,  their  realm  seemed 
rather  to  be  enlarged  by  the  addition.  It  was  also  easy  to 
blend  the  cults  of  deities  originally  distinct  and  unite  many 
divinities  under  a  composite  name,  and  by  this  process  create 
a  system  of  worship  which  would  either  comprise  the  gods  of 
many  lands  or  even  merge  them  into  one  large  family.  This 
was  actually  the  state  of  the  various  pagan  religions  at  the 
time  of  the  decline  of  antiquity.  But  such  a  procedure  could 
never  lead  towards  true  monotheism.  It  lacks  the  concep¬ 
tion  of  an  inner  unity,  without  which  its  followers  could  not 
grasp  the  true  idea  of  God  as  the  source  and  essence  of  all 
life,  both  physical  and  spiritual.  Only  the  One  God  of  reve¬ 
lation  made  the  world  really  one.  In  Him  alone  heaven  and 
earth,  day  and  night,  growth  and  decay,  the  weal  and  woe  of 
individuals  and  nations,  appear  as  the  work  of  an  all-ruling 
Power  and  Wisdom,  so  that  all  events  in  nature  and  history 
are  seen  as  parts  of  one  all-comprising  plan.2 

4.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  a  wide  difference  of  view  exists 
between  the  prohibition  of  polytheism  and  idolatry  in  the 
Decalogue  and  the  proclamation  in  Deuteronomy  of  the  unity 
of  God,  and,  still  more,  between  the  law  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  prophetic  announcement  of  the  day  when  Israel’s 

1  Comp.  Ex.  XX,  3 ;  XXII,  19 ;  XXIII,  13  ;  with  Deut.  VI,  4 ;  IV,  35,  39 ; 
XXXII,  39 ;  Isaiah  XL  to  XLVIII. 

2  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  235-241 ;  D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  402-408 ;  A.  B.  Davidson : 
Theology  of  0.  T.}  p.  105 ;  149  f. 


84 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


God  “  shall  be  King  of  the  whole  earth,  and  His  name  shall 
be  One.”  1  Yet  Judaism  is  based  precisely  upon  this  higher 
view.  The  very  first  pages  of  Genesis,  the  opening  of  the 
Torah,  as  well  as  the  exilic  portions  of  Isaiah  which  form  the 
culmination  of  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms  also,  prove  suffi¬ 
ciently  that  at  their  time  monotheism  was  an  axiom  of  Ju¬ 
daism.  In  fact,  heathenism  had  become  synonymous  with 
both  image-worship  and  belief  in  many  gods  beside  the  Only 
One  of  Israel,  and  accordingly  had  lost  all  hold  upon  the  Jewish 
people.  The  heathen  gods  were  given  a  place  in  the  celestial 
economy,  but  only  as  subordinate  rulers  or  as  the  guardian 
angels  of  the  nations,  and  always  under  the  dominion  of  God 
on  high.2 

5.  Later,  in  the  contest  against  Graeco-Egyptian  paganism, 
the  doctrine  of  God’s  unity  was  emphasized  in  the  Alexandrian 
propaganda  literature,  of  which  only  a  portion  has  been  pre¬ 
served  for  us.  Here  antagonism  in  the  most  forcible  form  is 
expressed  against  the  delusive  cults  of  paganism,  and  exclu¬ 
sive  worship  claimed  for  “the  unseen,  yet  all-seeing  God,  the 
uncreated  Creator  of  the  world.”  3  The  Rabbinical  Haggadah 
contains  but  dim  reminiscences  of  the  extensive  propaganda 
carried  on  previous  to  Hillel,  the  Talmudic  type  of  the  propa¬ 
gandist.  Moreover,  this  period  fostered  free  inquiry  and 
philosophical  discussion,  and  therefore  the  doctrine  of  unity 
emerged  more  and  more  from  simple  belief  to  become  a  matter 
of  reason.  The  God  of  truth  put  to  flight  the  gods  of  false¬ 
hood.  Hence  many  gentiles  espoused  the  cause  of  Judaism, 
becoming  “God-fearing  men.”  4 

6.  In  this  connection  it  seems  necessary  to  point  out  the 
difference  between  the  God  of  the  Greek  philosophers  — 
Xenophanes  and  Anaxagoras,  Plato  and  Aristotle  —  and  the 
God  of  the  Bible.  In  abandoning  their  own  gods,  the  Greek 


1  Zach.  XIV,  9. 

8  Bousset,  1.  c.,  221  f.,  348. 


2  Deut.  IV,  19 ;  Jer.  X,  2. 
4  See  Chapter  LVI,  below. 


THE  ONE  AND  ONLY  GOD 


85 


philosophers  reached  a  deistic  view  of  the  cosmos.  As  their 
study  of  science  showed  them  plan  and  order  everywhere, 
they  concluded  that  the  universe  is  governed  by  an  all-en¬ 
compassing  Intelligence,  a  divine  power  entirely  distinct  from 
the  capricious  deities  of  the  popular  religion.  Reflection  led 
them  to  a  complete  rupture  with  their  religious  belief.  The 
Biblical  belief  in  God  underwent  a  different  process.  After 
God  had  once  been  conceived  of,  He  was  held  up  as  the  ideal 
of  morality,  including  both  righteousness  and  holiness.  Then 
this  doctrine  was  continuously  elucidated  and  deepened,  until 
a  stage  was  reached  where  a  harmony  could  be  established 
between  the  teachings  of  Moses  and  the  wisdom  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle.  To  the  noble  thinkers  of  Hellas  truth  was  an  object 
of  supreme  delight,  the  highest  privilege  of  the  sage.  To  the 
adherents  of  Judaism  truth  became  the  holiest  aim  of  life  for 
the  entire  people,  for  which  all  were  taught  to  battle  and  to 
die,  as  did  the  Maccabean  heroes  and  Daniel  and  his  asso¬ 
ciates,  their  prototypes. 

7.  A  deeper  meaning  was  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  God’s 
unity  under  Persian  rule,  in  contact  with  the  religious  system 
of  Zoroaster.  To  the  Persians  life  was  a  continual  conflict 
between  the  principles  of  good  and  of  evil,  until  the  ultimate 
victory  of  good  shall  come.  This  dualistic  view  of  the  world 
greatly  excels  all  other  heathen  religious  systems,  insofar  as  it 
assigns  ethical  purpose  to  the  whole  of  life.  Yet  the  great 
seer  of  the  Exile  opposes  this  system  in  the  name  of  the  God 
of  Judaism,  speaking  to  Cyrus,  the  king  of  Persia ;  “I  am  the 
Lord  and  there  is  none  else ;  beside  Me  there  is  no  God.  I 
will  gird  thee,  though  thou  dost  not  know  Me,  in  order  that 
the  people  shall  know  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  and  from 
the  west  that  there  is  none  beside  Me.  I  form  the  light  and 
create  darkness ;  I  make  peace  and  also  create  evil,  I  am  the 
Lord  that  doeth  these  things.”  1  This  declaration  of  pure 

1  Isa.  XLV,  5-7. 


1 


86 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


monotheism  is  incompatible  with  dualism  in  both  the  phys¬ 
ical  and  the  moral  world;  it  regards  evil  as  being  mere 
semblance  without  reality,  an  opposing  force  which  can  be 
overcome  and  rendered  a  source  of  new  strength  for  the  vic¬ 
tory  of  the  good.  “Out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Most  High 
cometh  there  not  the  evil  and  the  good?”  1 

8.  The  division  of  the  world  into  rival  realms  of  good  and 
evil  powers,  of  angelic  and  demoniacal  forces,  which  originated 
in  ancient  Chaldea  and  underlies  the  Zoroastrian  dualism, 
finally  took  hold  of  Judaism  also.  Still  this  was  not  carried 
to  such  an  extent  that  Satan,  the  supreme  ruler  of  the  demon 
world,  was  given  a  dominion  equal  to  that  of  God,  or  inter¬ 
fering  with  it,  so  as  to  impair  thereby  the  principle  of  mono¬ 
theism,  as  was  done  by  the  Church  later  on.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  at  the  time  of  nascent  Christianity  the  leaders  of  the 
Synagogue  took  rigid  measures  against  those  heretics  {Minim) 
who  believed  in  two  divine  powers,2  because  they  recognized 
the  grave  danger  of  moral  degeneracy  in  this  Gnostic  dualism. 
In  the  Church  it  led  first  to  the  deification  of  Christ  {i.e.  the 
Messiah)  as  the  vanquisher  of  Satan ;  afterwards,  owing  to  a 
compromise  with  heathenism,  the  Trinity  was  adopted  to 
correspond  with  the  three-fold  godhead,  —  father,  mother, 
and  son,  —  the  place  of  the  mother  deity  being  taken  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  was  originally  conceived  as  a  female  power 
(the  Syrian  Ruha  being  of  the  feminine  gender).3 

9.  The  churchmen  have  attempted  often  enough  to  har¬ 
monize  the  dualism  or  trinitarianism  of  Christianity  with  the 
monotheism  of  the  Bible.  Still  Judaism  persists  in  consider¬ 
ing  such  an  infringement  upon  the  belief  in  Israel’s  one  and 
only  God  as  really  a  compromise  with  heathenism.  “A 

1  Lam.  Ill,  38. 

2 Shethe  Reshuyoth,  see  Hag.  15  a;  Deut.  R.  I.  10;  Eccl.  R.  II,  12;  Weber, 
I.  c.,  152;  Joel,  Blicke  in  d.  Religionsgesch.,  II,  157. 

3  D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  409-501 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Christianity. 


THE  ONE  AND  ONLY  GOD  87 

Jew  is  he  who  opposes  every  sort  of  polytheism/’  says  the 
Talmud.1 

10.  The  medieval  Jewish  thinkers  therefore  made  re¬ 
doubled  efforts  to  express  with  utmost  clearness  the  doctrine 
of  God’s  unity.  In  this  effort  they  received  special  encourage¬ 
ment  from  the  example  of  the  leaders  of  Islam,  whose  vic¬ 
torious  march  over  the  globe  was  a  triumph  for  the  one  God 
of  Abraham  over  the  triune  God  of  Christianity.  A  great 
tide  of  intellectual  progress  arose,  lending  to  the  faith  of  the 
Mohammedans  and  subsequently  also  to  that  of  the  Jews  an 
impetus  which  lasted  for  centuries.  The  new  thought  and  keen 
research  of  that  period  had  a  lasting  influence  upon  the  whole 
development  of  western  culture.  An  alliance  was  effected 
between  religion  and  philosophy,  particularly  by  the  leading 
Jewish  minds,  which  proved  a  liberating  and  stimulating  force 
in  all  fields  of  scientific  investigation.  Thus  the  pure  idea 
of  monotheism  became  the  basis  for  modern  science  and  the 
entire  modern  world-view.2 

11.  The  Mohammedan  thinkers  devoted  their  attention 
chiefly  to  elucidating  and  spiritualizing  the  God  idea,  begin¬ 
ning  as  early  as  the  third  century  of  Islamism,  so  to  interpret 
the  Koran  as  to  divest  God  of  all  anthropomorphic  attributes 
and  to  stress  His  absolute  unity,  uniqueness,  and  the  incom¬ 
parability  of  His  oneness.  Soon  they  became  familiar  with 
neo-Platonic  and  afterward  with  Aristotelian  modes  of  specu¬ 
lation  through  the  work  of  Syrian  and  Jewish  translators. 
With  the  help  of  these  they  built  up  a  system  of  theology 
which  influenced  Jewish  thought  also,  first  in  Karaite  and  then 
in  Rabbanite  circles.3  Thus  sprang  up  successively  the  philo¬ 
sophical  systems  of  Saadia,  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  Ibn  Gabirol, 
Bahya,  Ibn  Baud,  and  Maimonides.  The  philosophical  hymns 
and  the  articles  of  faith,  both  of  which  found  a  place  in  the  lit- 

1  Meg.  13  a.  2  Comp.  Lange :  Gescli.  d.  Materialismus,  I,  149-158. 

3  Alfred  v.  Kremer,  1.  c.,  9-33 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Arabic  and  Arabic-Jewish  Philosophy. 


88 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


urgy  of  the  Synagogue,  were  the  work  of  their  followers.  The 
highest  mode  of  adoring  God  seemed  to  be  the  elaboration  of 
the  idea  of  His  unity  to  its  logical  conclusion,  which  satisfied 
the  philosophical  mind,  though  often  remote  from  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  multitude.  For  centuries  the  supreme  effort 
of  Jewish  thought  was  to  remove  Him  from  the  possibility  of 
comparison  with  any  other  being,  and  to  abolish  every  con¬ 
ception  which  might  impair  His  absolute  and  simple  unity. 
This  mental  activity  filled  the  dwellings  of  Israel  with  light, 
even  when  the  darkness  of  ignorance  covered  the  lands  of 
Christendom,  dispelled  only  here  and  there  by  rays  of  knowl¬ 
edge  emanating  from  Jewish  quarters.1 

12.  The  proofs  of  the  unity  of  God  adduced  by  Moham¬ 
medan  and  Jewish  thinkers  were  derived  from  the  rational 
order,  design,  and  unity  of  the  cosmos,  and  from  the  laws  of 
the  mind  itself.  These  aided  in  endowing  Judaism  with  a 
power  of  conviction  which  rendered  futile  the  conversionist 
efforts  of  the  Church,  with  its  arguments  and  its  threats. 
Israel’s  only  One  proved  to  be  the  God  of  truth,  high  and 
holy  to  both  the  mind  and  the  heart.  The  Jewish  masters  of 
thought  rendered  Him  the  highest  object  of  their  speculation, 
only  to  bow  in  awe  before  Him  who  is  beyond  all  human 
ken ;  the  Jewish  martyrs  likewise  cheerfully  offered  up  their 
lives  in  His  honor ;  and  thus  all  hearts  echoed  the  battle-cry 
of  the  centuries,  “Hear  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord 
is  One,”  and  all  minds  were  illumined  by  the  radiant  hope, 
“The  Lord  will  be  King  of  the  earth;  on  that  day  the  Lord 
shall  be  One,  and  His  name  shall  be  One.” 

13.  Under  all  conditions,  however,  the  doctrine  of  unity 
remained  free  from  outward  compulsion  and  full  of  intrinsic 
vigor  and  freshness.  There  was  still  room  for  differences  of 
opinion,  such  as  whether  God’s  life,  power,  wisdom,  and  unity 
are  attributes  —  distinct  from  His  being,  and  qualifying  it,  — 

1  See  Draper’s  Conflict  between  Religion  and  Science. 


THE  ONE  AND  ONLY  GOD 


89 


or  whether  they  are  inherent  in  His  nature,  comprising  His 
very  essence.  This  controversy  aimed  to  determine  the  con¬ 
ception  of  God,  either  by  Aristotelian  rationalism,  as  repre¬ 
sented  by  Maimonides,  or  by  the  positive  religious  assumptions 
of  Crescas  and  others. 

This  is  Maimonides’  statement  of  the  unity :  “God  is  one ; 
that  is,  He  is  unlike  any  other  unit,  whether  made  one  in 
point  of  numbers  or  species,  or  by  virtue  of  composition,  sepa¬ 
ration,  and  simplification.  He  is  one  in  Himself,  there  being 
no  multiplicity  in  Him.  His  unity  is  beyond  all  definition.”  1 

Ibn  Gabirol  in  his  “Crown  of  Royalty”  puts  the  same 
thought  into  poetic  form  :  “One  art  Thou ;  the  wise  wonder 
at  the  mystery  of  Thy  unity,  not  knowing  what  it  is.  One 
art  Thou ;  not  like  the  one  of  dimension  or  number,  as  neither 
addition  nor  change,  neither  attribute  nor  quality  affects 
Thy  being.  Thou  art  God,  who  sustainest  all  beings  by  Thy 
divinity,  who  holdest  all  creatures  in  Thy  unity.  Thou  art 
God,  and  there  is  no  distinction  between  Thy  unity,  Thy 
eternity,  and  Thy  being.  All  is  mystery,  and  however  the 
names  may  differ,  they  all  tell  that  Thou  art  but  one.”  2 

14.  Side  by  side  with  this  rationalistic  trend,  Judaism 
always  contained  a  current  of  mysticism.  The  mystics  ac¬ 
cepted  literally  the  anthropomorphic  pictures  of  the  Deity  in 
the  Bible,  and  did  not  care  how  much  they  might  affect  the 
spirituality  and  unity  of  God.  The  philosophic  schools  had 
contended  against  the  anthropomorphic  views  of  the  older 
mystics,  and  thus  had  brought  higher  views  of  the  Godhead 
to  dominance;  but  when  the  rationalistic  movement  had 
spent  its  force,  the  reaction  came  in  the  form  of  the  Cabbalah , 
the  secret  lore  which  claimed  to  have  been  “transmitted” 
(according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word)  from  a  hoary  past. 
The  older  system  of  thought  had  stripped  the  Deity  of  all 
reality  and  had  robbed  religion  of  all  positiveness;  now,  in 
1  Maim. :  Yesode  ha  Torah ,  I,  7.  2  Sachs,  1.  c.,  3. 


90 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


contrast,  the  soul  demanded  a  God  of  revelation  through 
faith  in  whom  might  come  exaltation  and  solace.1 

Nevertheless  the  Maimonidean  articles  of  faith  were  adopted 
into  the  liturgy  because  of  their  emphasis  on  the  absolute  unity 
and  indivisibility  of  God,  by  which  they  constituted  a  vigor¬ 
ous  protest  against  the  Christian  dogma.  Judaism  ever  found 
its  strength  in  God  the  only  One,  and  will  find  Him  ever 
anew  a  source  of  inspiration  and  rejuvenation. 


1  See  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  239-258. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


God’s  Omnipotence  and  Omniscience 

1.  Among  all  the  emotions  which  underlie  our  God-con¬ 
sciousness  the  foremost  is  the  realization  of  our  own  weakness 
and  helplessness.  This  makes  us  long  for  One  mightier  than 
ourselves,  for  the  Almighty  whose  acts  are  beyond  comparison. 
The  first  attribute,  therefore,  with  which  we  feeble  mortals 
invest  our  Deity  is  omnipotence.  Thus  the  pagan  ascribes 
supreme  power  over  their  different  realms  to  his  various  deities. 
Hence  the  name  for  God  among  all  the  Semites  is  El  —  “the 
Powerful  One.”  1  Judaism  claims  for  God  absolute  and  un¬ 
limited  power  over  all  that  is.  It  declares  Him  to  be  the  source 
and  essence  of  all  strength,  the  almighty  Creator  and  Ruler 
of  the  universe.  All  that  exists  is  His  creation ;  all  that  occurs 
is  His  achievement.  He  is  frequently  called  by  the  rabbis 
ha  Geburah ,  the  Omnipotence.2 

2.  The  historical  method  of  study  seems  to  indicate  that 
various  cosmic  potencies  were  worshiped  in  primitive  life 
either  singly  or  collectively  under  the  name  of  Elohim ,  “divine 
powers,”  or  Zibeoth  Elohim ,  “hosts  of  divine  powers.”  With 
the  acceptance  of  the  idea  of  divine  omnipotence,  these  were 
united  into  a  confederacy  of  divine  forces  under  the  dominion 
of  the  one  God,  the  “Lord  of  Hosts.”  Still  these  powers  of 
heaven,  earth  and  the  deep  by  no  means  at  once  surrendered 
their  identity.  Most  of  them  became  angels,  “messengers”  of 
the  omnipotent  God,  or  “  spirits  ”  roaming  in  the  realms 
where  once  they  ruled,  while  a  few  were  relegated  as  monsters 
to  the  region  of  superstition.  The  heathen  deities,  which 

1  See  Hebrew  Dictionary,  El;  comp.  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  210,  244. 

2  See  Levy,  W.  B. :  Geburah. 


9i 


92 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


persisted  for  a  while  in  popular  belief,  were  also  placed  with 
the  angels  as  “ heavenly  rulers”  of  their  respective  lands  or 
nations  about  the  throne  of  the  Most  High.  At  all  events, 
Israel’s  God  was  enthroned  above  them  all  as  Lord  of  the 
universe.  In  fact,  the  Alexandrian  translators  and  some  of  the 
rabbis  actually  explained  in  this  sense  the  Biblical  names  El 
Shaddai  and  J.H.V.H.  Zebaoth.1  The  medieval  philosophers, 
however,  took  a  backward  step  away  from  the  Biblical  view 
when,  under  the  influence  of  Neoplatonism,  they  represented 
the  angels  and  the  spirits  of  the  stars  as  intermediary  forces.2 

3.  According  to  the  Bible,  both  the  Creation  and  the  order 
of  the  universe  testify  to  divine  omnipotence.  God  called 
all  things  into  existence  by  His  almighty  word,  unassisted  by 
His  heavenly  messengers.  He  alone  stretched  out  the  heavens, 
set  bounds  to  the  sea,  and  founded  the  earth  on  pillars  that 
it  be  not  moved ;  none  was  with  Him  to  partake  in  the  work. 
This  is  the  process  of  creation  according  to  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  and  the  fortieth  chapter  of  Isaiah.  So  He  ap¬ 
pears  throughout  the  Scriptures  as  “the  Doer  of  wonders,” 
“whose  arm  never  waxes  short”  to  carry  out  His  will.  “He 
fainteth  not,  neither  is  He  weary.”  His  dominion  extends 
over  the  sea  and  the  storm,  over  life  and  death,  over  high  and 
low.  Intermediary  forces  participating  in  His  work  are 
never  mentioned.  They  are  referrred  to  only  in  the  poetic 
description  of  creation  in  the  book  of  Job:  “Where  wast 
thou  when  I  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth  ?  .  .  .  When  the 
morning  stars  sang  together,  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted 
for  joy.” 3 

1  See  Septuagint  to  Job  V,  17;  VIII,  3,  and  II  Sam.  V,  10;  VII,  8,  and 
Ber.  31  b. 

2  See  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  67  ff.  David  Neumark  thinks  that  both  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  and  the  Mishnah  knew  and  rejected  the  belief  in  angels.  See  his 
article  Ikkarim  in  Ozar  Ha  Yahduth. 

3  Gen.  XVIII,  14;  Num.  XI,  13;  Is.  XL,  12;  Jer.  V,  22;  X,  12;  XXVII, 
5;  XXXII,  17;  Zach.  VIII,  6;  Job  XXXVIII,  7;  XLII,  1. 


GOD’S  OMNIPOTENCE  AND  OMNISCIENCE 


93 


Proof  of  God’s  supreme  power  was  found  particularly  in 
history,  either  in  His  miraculous  changing  of  the  natural 
order,  or  in  His  defeat  of  the  mighty  hostile  armies  which 
bade  Him  defiance.1  Often  the  heathen  deities  or  the  celestial 
powers  are  introduced  as  dramatic  figures  to  testify  to  the 
triumph  of  the  divine  omnipotence,  as  when  the  Lord  is  said 
to  “execute  judgment  against  the  gods  of  Egypt”  or  when 
“the  stars  in  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera.”  2 

4.  God’s  power  is  limited  only  by  His  own  volition.  “He 
doeth  what  He  willeth.”  3  In  man  the  will  and  the  power 
for  a  certain  act  are  far  apart,  and  often  directly  conflicting. 
Not  so  with  God,  for  the  very  idea  of  God  is  perfection,  and 
His  will  implies  necessarily  the  power  to  accomplish  the  desired 
end.  His  will  is  determined  only  by  such  factors  as  His 
knowledge  and  His  moral  self-restraint. 

5.  Therefore  the  idea  of  God’s  omnipotence  must  be  coupled 
with  that  of  His  omniscience.  Both  His  power  and  His 
knowledge  are  unlike  man’s  in  being  without  limitation. 
When  we  repeat  the  Biblical  terms  of  an  all-seeing,  all-hearing, 
and  all-knowing  God,  we  mean  in  the  first  instance  that  the 
limitation  of  space  does  not  exist  for  Him.  He  beholds  the 
extreme  parts  of  the  earth  and  observes  all  that  happens  under 
the  heavens ;  nothing  is  hidden  from  His  sight.  He  not  only 
sees  the  deeds  of  men,  He  also  searches  their  thoughts.  Look¬ 
ing  into  their  hearts,  He  knows  the  word,  ere  it  is  upon  the 
tongue.  Looking  into  the  future,  he  knows  every  creature ? 
ere  it  enters  existence.  “The  darkness  and  the  light  are  alike 
to  Him.”  With  one  glance  He  surveys  all  that  is  and  all  that 
happens.4  He  is,  as  the  rabbis  express  it,  “the  all-seeing  Eye 
and  the  all-hearing  Ear.”  5 

1  Deut.  Ill,  24;  XI,  3;  XXVI,  8;  XXIX,  2;  Jer.  X,  6;  Ps.  LXV,  7; 
LXVI,  7;  LXIV-LXXVIII;  I  Chron.  XXIX,  11,12. 

2  Ex.  XII,  12  ;  Judges  V,  10.  3  Daniel  IV,  35. 

4Ps.  XI,  4;  XXXIII,  13  f.;  CXXXIX ;  Jer.  XI,  20;  XVII,  10;  Job 
XII,  13 ;  Dan.  II,  20  f.  6  Aboth  II,  1. 


94 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


In  like  manner  the  distinctions  of  time  disappear  before 
Him.  The  entire  past  is  unrolled  before  His  sight ;  His  book 
records  all  that  men  do  or  suffer,  even  their  tears ; 1  and  there 
is  no  forgetfulness  with  Him.  The  remotest  future  also  is 
open  before  Him,  for  it  is  planned  by  Him,  and  in  it  He  has 
allotted  to  each  being  its  days  and  its  steps.2  Yea,  as  He 
beholds  events  ere  they  transpire,  so  He  reveals  the  secrets  of 
the  future  to  His  chosen  ones,  in  order  to  warn  men  of  the 
judgments  that  threaten  them.3 

6.  The  idea  of  divine  omniscience  could  ripen  only  gradually 
in  the  minds  of  the  people.  The  older  and  more  child-like 
conception  still  remains  in  the  stories  of  the  Deluge  and  the 
Tower  of  Babel,  where  God  descended  from  heaven  to  watch 
the  doings  of  men,  and  repented  of  what  He  had  done.4  Ob¬ 
viously  the  idea  of  divine  omniscience  took  hold  of  the  people 
as  a  result  of  the  admonitions  of  the  prophets. 

7.  Philosophical  inquiry  into  the  ideas  of  the  divine  omnip¬ 
otence  and  omniscience,  however,  discloses  many  difficulties. 
The  Biblical  assertion  that  nothing  is  impossible  to  God  will 
not  stand  the  test  as  soon  as  we  ask  seriously  whether  God 
can  make  the  untrue  true,  —  as  making  two  times  two  to 
equal  five  —  or  whether  He  can  declare  the  wrong  to  be  right. 
Obviously  He  cannot  overturn  the  laws  of  mathematical  truth 
or  of  moral  truth,  without  at  the  same  time  losing  His  nature 
as  the  Source  and  Essence  of  all  truth.  Nor  can  He  abrogate 
the  laws  of  nature,  which  are  really  His  own  rules  for  His 
creation,  without  detracting  from  both  His  omniscience  and 
the  immutability  of  His  will.  This  question  will  be  discussed 
more  fully  in  connection  with  miracles,  in  chapter  XXVII. 

Together  with  the  problem  of  the  divine  omniscience  arises 
the  difficulty  of  reconciling  this  with  our  freedom  of  will  and 

1  Mai.  Ill,  16;  Ps.  LVI,  9. 

2  See  New  Year  liturgy,  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  249. 

3  Amos  III,  7.;  Gen.  XVIII,  17.  4  Gen.  VI,  5;  XI,  5;  XVIII,  21. 


GOD’S  OMNIPOTENCE  AND  OMNISCIENCE 


95 


our  moral  responsibility.  Would  not  His  foreknowledge  of 
our  actions  in  effect  determine  them?  This  difficulty  can 
only  be  solved  by  a  proper  conception  of  the  freedom  of  the 
will,  and  will  be  discussed  in  that  connection  in  chapter 
XXXVII. 

Altogether,  we  must  guard  against  applying  our  human  type 
of  knowledge  to  God.  Man,  limited  by  space  and  time, 
obtains  his  knowledge  of  things  and  events  by  his  senses, 
becoming  aware  of  them  separately  as  they  exist  either  beside 
each  other  or  in  succession.  With  God  all  knowledge  is 
complete ;  there  is  no  growth  of  knowledge  from  yesterday  to 
to-day,  no  knowledge  of  only  a  part  instead  of  the  whole  of 
the  world.  His  omniscience  and  omnipotence  are  bound  up 
with  His  omnipresence  and  eternity.  “For  My  thoughts  are 
not  your  thoughts,  neither  are  your  ways  My  ways,  saith 
the  Lord.  For  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so 
are  My  ways  higher  than  your  ways,  and  My  thoughts  than 
your  thoughts.”  1 

1  Isa.  LV,  8,  9. 


CHAPTER  XV 


God’s  Omnipresence  and  Eternity 

1.  As  soon  as  man  awakens  to  a  higher  consciousness  of 
God,  he  realizes  the  vast  distance  between  his  own  finite 
being  limited  by  space  and  time,  and  the  Infinite  Being  which 
rules  everywhere  and  unceasingly  in  lofty  grandeur  and  un¬ 
limited  power.  His  very  sense  of  being  hedged  in  by  the 
bounds  and  imperfections  of  a  finite  existence  makes  him  long 
for  the  infinite  God,  unlimited  in  might,  and  brings  to  him 
the  feeling  of  awe  before  His  greatness.  But  this  conception 
of  God  as  the  omnipresent  and  everlasting  Spirit,  as  distinct 
from  any  created  being,  is  likewise  the  result  of  many  stages 
of  growing  thought. 

2.  The  primitive  mind  imagines  God  as  dwelling  in  a 
lofty  place,  whence  He  rules  the  earth  beneath,  descending 
at  times  to  take  part  in  the  affairs  of  men,  to  tarry  among 
them,  or  to  walk  with  them.1  The  people  adhered  largely  to 
this  conception  during  the  Biblical  period,  as  they  considered 
as  the  original  seat  of  the  Deity,  first  Paradise,  later  on  Sinai 
or  Zion,  and  finally  the  far-off  heavens.  It  required  prophetic 
vision  to  discern  that  “the  heavens  and  the  heavens’  heavens 
do  not  encompass  God’s  majesty,”  expressed  also  in  poetic 
imagery  that  “the  heaven  is  My  throne  and  the  earth  My 
footstool.”  2  The  classic  form  of  this  idea  of  the  divine  omni¬ 
presence  is  found  in  the  oft-quoted  passage  from  Psalm 
CXXXIX.3 

1  Gen.  IV,  16 ;  XI,  5;  XVIII,  21;  XXVIII,  16;  Deut.  XXVI,  15;  Micah 
I,  3 ;  see  Strauss,  1.  c.,  I,  548  f. 

2 1  Kings  VIII,  27 ;  Isa.  LXVI,  1.  3  See  above,  Chapter  XII,  5. 

96 


GOD’S  OMNIPRESENCE  AND  ETERNITY 


97 


3.  The  dwelling  places  of  God  are  to  give  way  the  moment 
His  omnipresence  is  understood  as  penetrating  the  universe  to 
such  an  extent  that  nothing  escapes  His  glance  nor  lies  with¬ 
out  His  dominion.1  They  are  then  transformed  into  places 
where  He  had  manifested  His  Name,  His  Glory,  or  His  Pres¬ 
ence  (“Countenance,”  in  the  Hebrew).  In  this  way  certain 
emanations  or  powers  of  God  were  formed  which  could  be 
located  in  a  certain  space  without  impairing  the  divine  omni¬ 
presence.  These  intermediary  powers  will  be  the  theme  of 
chapter  XXXII. 

The  following  dialogue  illustrates  this  stage  of  thought: 
A  heretic  once  said  sarcastically  to  Gamaliel  II,  “Ye  say  that 
where  ten  persons  assemble  for  worship,  there  the  divine 
majesty  (, Shekinah )  descends  upon  them;  how  many  such 
majesties  are  there?”  To  which  Gamaliel  replied:  “Does 
not  the  one  orb  of  day  send  forth  a  million  rays  upon  the  earth  ? 
And  should  not  the  majesty  of  God,  which  is  a  million  times 
brighter  than  the  sun,  be  reflected  in  every  spot  on  earth?”  2 

4.  Nevertheless  a  conception  of  pure  spirit  is  very  difficult 
to  attain,  even  in  regard  to  God.  The  thought  of  His  omni¬ 
presence  is  usually  interpreted  by  imagining  some  ethereal 
substance  which  expands  infinitely,  as  Ibn  Ezra  and  Saadia 
before  him  were  inclined  to  do,3  or  by  picturing  Him  as  a 
sort  of  all-encompassing  Space,  in  accordance  with  the 
rabbis.4  The  New  Testament  writers  and  the  Church  fathers 
likewise  spoke  of  God  as  Spirit,  but  really  had  in  mind,  for 
the  most  part,  an  ethereal  substance  resembling  light  pervad¬ 
ing  cosmic  space.  The  often-expressed  belief  that  man  may 
see  God  after  death  rests  upon  this  conception  of  God  as  a 
substance  perceptible  to  the  mind.5 

1  Comp.  Amos  IX,  2  ;  Jer.  XXIII,  24.  2  Sanh.  39  a. 

3  Comp.  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  70  and  71,  notes  130,  13 1 ;  Strauss,  1.  c.,  I,  551. 

4  Makom,  see  above,  Chapter  X,  8-9;  Schechter,  Aspects ,  26  f. 

5Luk.  45  b;  comp.  I  Corinth.  XIII,  12,  based  on  Ex.  XXXIII,  28;  Ps. 
XVII,  15. 


98 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


A  higher  standpoint  is  taken  by  a  thinker  such  as  Ibn 
Gabirol,  who  finds  God’s  omnipresence  in  His  all-pervading 
will  and  intellect.1  But  this  type  of  divine  omnipresence  is 
rather  divine  immanence.  The  religious  consciousness  has  a 
quite  different  picture  of  God,  a  self-conscious  Personality, 
ever  near  to  man,  ever  scanning  his  acts,  his  thoughts,  and  his 
motives.  Here  philosophy  and  religion  part  company.  The 
former  must  abstain  from  the  assumption  of  a  divine  person¬ 
ality  ;  the  latter  cannot  do  without  it.  The  God  of  religion 
must  partake  of  the  knowledge  and  the  feelings  of  His  wor¬ 
shiper,  must  know  his  every  impulse  and  idea,  and  must  feel 
with  him  in  his  suffering  and  need.  God’s  omnipresence  is  in 
this  sense  a  postulate  of  religion. 

5.  The  second  earthly  and  human  limitation  is  that  of  time. 
Confined  by  space  and  time,  man  casts  his  eyes  upward  toward 
a  Being  who  shall  be  infinite  and  eternal.  Whatever  time 
begets,  time  swallows  up  again.  Transitoriness  is  the  fate  of 
all  things.  Everything  which  enters  existence  must  end  at 
last.  “Also  heaven  and  earth  perish  and  wax  old  like  a 
garment.  Only  God  remains  forever  the  same,  and  His  years 
have  no  end.  He  is  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  the  first 
and  the  last.”  So  speak  prophet  and  psalmist,  voicing  a 
universal  thought 2 ;  and  our  liturgical  poet  sings  : 

“The  Lord  of  all  did  reign  supreme 
Ere  yet  this  world  was  made  and  formed ; 

When  all  was  finished  by  His  will, 

Then  was  His  name  as  King  proclaimed. 

“And  should  these  forms  no  more  exist, 

He  still  will  rule  in  majesty ; 

He  was,  He  is,  He  shall  remain, 

His  glory  never  shall  decrease.”  3 

1  See  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  100  f. 

2  Isa.  XL VIII,  12  ;  Ps.  XC,  2  f. ;  CII,  26,  27.  On  the  process  of  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  idea  of  eternity,  see  Neumark,  1.  c.,  II,  77. 

3  Adon  Olam,  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  p.  3. 


GOD’S  OMNIPRESENCE  AND  ETERNITY 


99 


6.  But  the  idea  of  God’s  eternity  also  presents  certain 
difficulties  to  the  thinking  mind.  As  Creator  and  Author  of 
the  universe,  God  is  the  First  Cause,  without  beginning  or 
end,  the  Source  of  all  existence ;  as  Ruler  and  Master  of  the 
world,  He  maintains  all  things  through  all  eternity ;  though 
heaven  and  earth  “  wax  old  like  a  garment,”  He  outlasts  them 
all.  Now,  if  He  is  to  manifest  these  powers  from  everlasting 
to  everlasting,  He  must  ever  remain  the  same.  Consequently, 
we  must  add  immutability  as  a  corollary  of  eternity,  if  the 
latter  is  to  mean  anything.  It  is  not  enough  to  state  that  God 
is  without  beginning  and  without  end ;  the  essential  part  of 
the  doctrine  is  His  transcendence  above  the  changes  and  con¬ 
ditions  of  time.  We  mortals  cannot  really  entertain  a  con¬ 
ception  of  eternity ;  our  nearest  approach  to  it  is  an  endless 
succession  of  periods  of  time,  a  ceaseless  procession  of  ages  and 
eons  following  each  other.  Endless  time  is  not  at  all  the  same  as 
timelessness.  Therefore  eternity  signifies  transcendence  above 
all  existence  in  time ;  its  real  meaning  is  supermundaneity .l 

7.  This  seems  the  best  way  to  avoid  the  difficulty  which 
seemed  almost  insuperable  to  the  medieval  thinkers,  how  to 
reconcile  a  Creation  at  a  certain  time  and  a  Creator  for  whom 
time  does  not  exist.  In  the  effort  to  solve  the  difficulty,  they 
resorted  to  the  Platonic  and  Aristotelian  definition  of  time  as 
the  result  of  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies ;  thus  they 
declared  that  time  was  created  simultaneously  with  the  world. 
This  is  impossible  for  the  modern  thinker,  who  has  learned 
from  Kant  to  regard  time  and  space,  not  as  external  realities, 
but  as  human  modes  of  apperception  of  objects.  So  the  con¬ 
trast  between  the  transient  character  of  the  world  and  the 
eternity  of  God  becomes  all  the  greater  with  the  increasing 
realization  of  the  vast  gap  between  the  material  world  and  the 
divine  spirit. 

1  See  Strauss,  1.  c.,  562,  651;  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  306  f. ;  Drummond:  Philo, 
II,  46. 


IOO 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


At  this  point  arises  a  still  greater  difficulty.  The  very  idea 
of  creation  at  a  certain  time  becomes  untenable  in  view  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  natural  process ;  the  universe  itself,  it  seems 
to  us,  extends  over  an  infinity  of  space  and  time.  Indeed, 
the  modern  view  of  evolution  in  place  of  creation  has  the  grave 
danger  of  leading  to  pantheism,  to  a  conception  of  the  cosmos 
which  sees  in  God  only  an  eternal  energy  (or  substance)  de¬ 
void  of  free  volition  and  self-conscious  action.1  We  can  evade 
the  difficulty  only  by  assuming  God’s  transcendence,  and  this 
can  be  done  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  exclude  His  immanence, 
or  —  what  is  the  same  thing  —  His  omnipresence. 

8.  Both  God’s  omnipresence  and  His  eternity  are  intended 
only  to  raise  Him  far  above  the  world,  out  of  the  confines  of 
space  and  time,  to  represent  His  sublime  loftiness  as  the 
“Rock  of  Ages,”  as  holding  worlds  without  number  in  “His 
eternal  arms.”  “Nothing  can  be  hidden  from  Him  who  has 
reared  the  entire  universe  and  is  familiar  with  every  part  of  it, 
however  remote.”  2 

1  See  Chapter  XXV  below. 

2  Tanh.  Naso  ed.  Buber,  8;  Gen.  R.  IX,  g  with  reference  to  Jer.  XXIII,  24. 


CHAPTER  XVI 


God’s  Holiness 

1.  Judaism  recognizes  two  distinct  types  of  divine  attri¬ 
butes.  Those  which  we  have  so  far  considered  belong  to  the 
metaphysical  group,  which  chiefly  engage  the  attention  of 
the  philosopher.  They  represent  God  as  a  transcendental 
Being  who  is  ever  beyond  our  comprehension,  because  our 
finite  intellect  can  never  grasp  the  infinite  Spirit.  They  are 
not  descriptions,  but  rather  inferences  from  the  works  of  the 
Master  of  the  world  to  the  Master  himself.  But  there  are 
other  divine  attributes  which  we  derive  from  our  own  moral 
nature,  and  which  invest  our  whole  life  with  a  higher  moral 
character.  Instead  of  arising  from  the  external  necessity 
which  governs  nature  in  its  causes  and  effects,  these  rest  upon 
our  assumption  of  inner  freedom,  setting  the  aims  for  all  that 
we  achieve.  This  moral  nature  is  realized  to  some  extent  even 
by  the  savage,  when  he  trembles  before  his  deity  in  pangs  of 
conscience,  or  endeavors  to  propitiate  him  by  sacrifices.  Still, 
Judaism  alone  fully  realized  the  moral  nature  of  the  Deity; 
this  was  done  by  investing  the  term  “ holiness”  with  the  idea 
of  moral  perfection,  so  that  God  became  the  ideal  and  pattern 
of  the  loftiest  morality.  “Be  ye  holy,  for  I  the  Lord  your 
God  am  holy.”  1  —  This  is  the  central  and  culminating  idea  of 
the  Jewish  law.2 

2.  Holiness  is  the  essence  of  all  moral  perfection;  it  is 
purity  unsullied  by  any  breath  of  evil.  True  holiness  can  be 

1  Lev.  XIX,  i. 

2  Comp.  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  252  f. ;  Strauss,  1.  c.,  593  f. ;  Rauwenhoff,  1.  c.,  498- 
505 ;  Lazarus :  Ethics  of  Judaism,  Chapters  IV-V. 


101 


102 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


ascribed  only  to  Divinity,  above  the  realm  of  the  flesh  and  the 
senses.  “  There  is  none  holy  but  the  Lord,  for  there  is  none 
beside  Thee,”  says  Scripture.1  Whether  man  stands  on  a  lower 
or  higher  level  of  culture,  he  has  in  all  his  plans  and  aspirations 
some  ideal  of  perfection  to  which  he  may  never  attain,  but 
which  serves  as  the  standard  for  his  actions.  The  best  of  his 
doings  falls  short  of  what  he  ought  to  do ;  in  his  highest  efforts 
he  realizes  the  potentiality  of  better  things.  This  ideal  of 
moral  perfection  works  as  the  motive  power  of  the  will  in  setting 
for  it  a  standard ;  it  establishes  human  freedom  in  place  of 
nature’s  compulsion,  but  such  an  ideal  can  emanate  only  from 
the  moral  power  ruling  life,  which  we  designate  as  the  divine 
Holiness. 

3.  Scripture  says  of  God  that  He“  walketh  in  holiness,”2  and 
accordingly  morality  in  man  is  spoken  of  as  “  walking  in  the 
ways  of  God.”  3  “Walk  before  Me  and  be  perfect!”  says 
God  to  Abraham.4  Moses  approached  God  with  two  petitions, 
—  the  one,  “Show  me  Thy  ways  that  I  may  know  Thee !  ”  the 
other,  “Show  me,  I  pray  Thee,  Thy  glory!”  In  response  to 
the  latter  God  said,  “No  man  can  see  Me  and  live”,  but  the 
former  petition  was  granted  in  that  the  Lord  revealed  Himself 
in  His  moral  attributes.5  These  alone  can  be  understood  and 
emulated  by  man;  in  regard  to  the  so-called  metaphysical 
attributes  God  will  ever  remain  beyond  human  comprehension 
and  emulation. 

4.  In  order  to  serve  as  vehicle  for  the  expression  of  the 
highest  moral  perfection,  the  Biblical  term  for  holiness,  Kadosh, 
had  to  undergo  a  long  process  of  development,  obscuring  its 
original  meaning.  The  history  of  this  term  gives  us  the 
deepest  insight  into  the  working  of  the  Jewish  genius  towards 
the  full  revelation  of  the  God  of  holiness.  At  first  the  word 

1 1  Sam.  II,  21.  2  Ps.  LXXVII,  14. 

3  Deut.  X,  12 ;  XI,  22,  and  elsewhere. 

4  Gen.  XVIII,  19.  6  Ex.  XXXIII,  13-23. 


GOD'S  HOLINESS 


103 


Kadosh  1  seems  to  have  denoted  unapproachableness  in  the 
sense  in  which  fire  is  unapproachable,  that  is,  threatening  and 
consuming.  This  fiery  nature  was  ascribed  by  primitive  man 
to  all  divine  beings.  Hence  the  angels  are  termed  “the  holy 
ones”  in  Scripture.2  According  to  both  priestly  practice  and 
popular  belief,  the  man  who  approached  one  of  these  holy 
ones  with  hand  or  foot,  or  even  with  his  gaze,  was  doomed  to 
die.3  Out  of  such  crude  conceptions  evolved  the  idea  of 
God’s  majesty  as  unapproachable  in  the  sense  of  the  sublime, 
banishing  everything  profane  from  its  presence,  and  visiting 
with  punishment  every  violation  of  its  sanctity.  The  old 
conception  of  the  fiery  appearance  of  the  Deity  served  espe¬ 
cially  as  a  figurative  expression  of  the  moral  power  of  God, 
which  manifests  itself  as  a  “consuming  fire,”4  exterminating 
evil,  and  making  man  long  for  the  good  and  the  true,  for  right¬ 
eousness  and  love. 

5.  The  divine  attribute  of  holiness  has  accordingly  a  double 
meaning.  On  the  one  hand,  it  indicates  spiritual  loftiness 
transcending  everything  sensual,  which  works  as  a  purging 
power  of  indignation  at  evil,  rebuking  injustice,  impurity  and 
falsehood,  and  punishing  transgression  until  it  is  removed  from 
the  sight  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  it  denotes  the  conde¬ 
scending  mercy  of  God,  which,  having  purged  the  soul  of  wrong, 
wins  it  for  the  right,  and  which  endows  man  with  the  power  of 
perfecting  himself,  and  thus  leads  him  to  the  gradual  building 
up  of  the  kingdom  of  goodness  and  purity  on  earth.  This 
ethical  conception  of  holiness,  which  emanates  from  the  moral 
nature  of  God,  revealed  to  the  prophetic  genius  of  Israel,  must 
not  be  confused  with  the  old  Semitic  conception  of  priestly  or 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Holiness.  The  Assyrian  Kuddisu  denotes  “bright,”  “pure,” 
according  to  Zimmern  in  Religion  und  Sprache ,  K.  A.  T.,  3d  ed.,  603. 

2  Deut.  XXXIII,  3  ;  Job  V,  1 ;  VI,  10 ;  XV,  15 ;  Ps.  LXXXIX,  6,  8. 

3  Ex.  XIX,  21  f. ;  XXIV,  17;  I  Sam.  VI,  20;  Josh.  XXIV,  19;  Isa.  IV,  3; 
VI,  3,  13;  X,  1 7;  XXXI,  9;  XXXIII,  14;  Hab.  I,  13. 

4  Deut.  IV,  24;  Ex.  XXIV,  17. 


104 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


ritual  holiness.  Ritual  holiness  is  purely  external,  and  is 
transferable  to  persons  and  things,  to  times  and  places,  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  relation  to  the  Deity.  Hence  the  various  cults  ap¬ 
plied  the  term  “holy  ”  to  the  most  abominable  forms  of  idolatry 
and  impure  worship.1  The  Mosaic  law  condemned  all  these  as 
violations  of  the  holiness  of  Israel’s  God,  but  could  not  help 
sanctioning  many  ordinances  and  rites  of  priestly  holiness 
which  originated  in  ancient  Semitic  usages.  Hence  the  two 
conceptions  of  holiness,  the  priestly  or  external  and  the  pro¬ 
phetic  or  ethical,  became  interwoven  in  the  Mosaic  code  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  impair  the  standard  of  ethical  holiness 
stressed  by  the  prophets,  the  unique  and  lofty  possession  of 
Judaism.  Hence  the  letter  of  the  Law  caused  a  deplorable 
confusion  of  ideas,  which  was  utilized  by  the  detractors  of 
Judaism.  The  liberal  movement  of  modern  Judaism,  in 
pointing  to  the  prophetic  ideals  as  the  true  basis  of  the  Jewish 
faith,  is  at  the  same  time  dispelling  this  ancient  confusion  of 
the  two  conceptions  of  holiness. 

6.  The  Levitical  holiness  adheres  outwardly  to  persons  and 
things  and  consists  in  their  separation  or  their  reservation  from 
common  use.  In  striking  contrast  to  this,  the  holiness  which 
Judaism  attributes  to  God  denotes  the  highest  ethical  purity, 
unattainable  to  flesh  and  blood,  but  designed  for  our  emulation. 

The  contemplation  of  the  divine  holiness  is  to  inspire  man 
with  fear  of  sin  and  to  exert  a  healthful  influence  upon  his 
conduct.  Thus  God  became  the  hallowing  power  in  Judaism 
and  its  institutions,  truly  the  “Holy  One  of  Israel”  according 
to  the  term  of  Isaiah  and  his  great  exilic  successor,  the  so-called 
Deutero-Isaiah.2  Thus  His  holiness  invested  His  people  with 

1  Comp,  the  name  Kadesh  and  Kedesha  for  the  hierodules  consecrated  to 
Astarte.  See  Deut.  XXIII,  18;  I  Kings  XIV,  24;  XV,  12;  Hosea  IV,  14. 
Comp.  Zimmern,  1.  c.,  p.  423. 

2  Isa.  I,  4;  V,  12;  X,  20;  XII,  6;  XLI,  14;  XLIII,  3  f.;  XLV,  n;  and 
elsewhere. 


GOD’S  HOLINESS 


105 


special  sanctity  and  imposed  upon  it  special  obligations.  In 
the  words  of  Ezekiel,  God  became  the  “Sanctifier  of  Israel.”  1 

The  rabbis  penetrated  deeply  into  the  spirit  of  Scripture, 
at  the  same  time  that  they  adhered  strictly  to  its  letter. 
While  they  clung  tenaciously  to  the  ritual  holiness  of  the 
priestly  codes,  they  recognized  the  ideal  of  holiness  which  is 
so  sharply  opposed  in  every  act  and  thought  to  the  demoraliz¬ 
ing  cults  of  heathenism.2 

7.  Accordingly,  holiness  is  not  the  metaphysical  concept 
which  Jehuda  ha  Levi  considers  it,3  but  the  principle  and  source 
of  all  ethics,  the  spirit  of  absolute  morality,  lending  purpose 
and  value  to  the  whole  of  life.  As  long  as  men  do  good  or 
shun  evil  through  fear  of  punishment  or  hope  for  reward, 
whether  in  this  life  or  the  hereafter,  so  long  will  ideal  morality 
remain  unattained,  and  man  cannot  claim  to  stand  upon  the 
ground  of  divine  holiness.  The  holy  God  must  penetrate  and 
control  all  of  life  —  such  is  the  essence  of  Judaism.  The  true 
aim  of  human  existence  is  not  salvation  of  the  soul,  —  a  desire 
which  is  never  quite  free  from  selfishness,  —  but  holiness 
emulating  God,  striving  to  do  good  for  the  sake  of  the  good 
without  regard  to  recompense,  and  to  shun  evil  because  it  is 
evil,  aside  from  all  consequences.4 

8.  The  fact  is  that  holiness  is  a  religious  term,  based  upon 
divine  revelation,  not  a  philosophical  one  resting  upon  specula¬ 
tive  reasoning.  It  is  a  postulate  of  our  moral  nature  that  all 
life  is  governed  by  a  holy  Will  to  which  we  must  submit 
willingly,  and  which  makes  for  the  good.  How  volition  and 
compulsion  are  with  God  one  and  the  same,  how  the  good 
exists  in  God  without  the  bad,  or  holiness  and  moral  purpose 
without  unholy  or  immoral  elements,  how  God  can  be  exactly 
opposite  to  all  we  know  of  man,  —  this  is  a  question  which 

1  Ezek.  XX,  12 ;  XXXVII,  28 ;  Ex.  XXXI,  13,  and  elsewhere. 

2  See  Sifra  and  Rabba  to  Lev.  XIX,  2. 

3  Cuzari  IV,  3 ;  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  162  f.  4  Aboth,  I,  3. 


io6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


philosophy  is  unable  to  answer.  In  fact,  holiness  is  best 
defined  negatively,  as  the  “  negation  of  all  that  man  from  his 
own  experience  knows  to  be  unholy.”  These  words  of  the 
Danish  philosopher  Rauwenhoff  are  made  still  clearer  by  the 
following  observations:  “The  strength  in  the  idea  of  holiness 
lies  exactly  in  its  negative  character.  There  is  no  comparison 
of  higher  or  lesser  degree  possible  between  man’s  imperfections 
and  God’s  perfect  goodness.  Instead,  there  is  an  absolute  con¬ 
trast  between  mankind  which,  even  in  its  noblest  types,  must 
wrestle  with  the  power  of  evil,  and  God,  in  whom  nothing 
can  be  imagined  which  would  even  suggest  the  possibility  of 
any  moral  shortcoming  or  imperfection.”  1  As  the  prophet 
says,  “Thou  art  too  pure  of  eyes  to  look  complacently  upon 
evil,”  2  and  according  to  the  Psalmist,  “Who  shall  ascend  into 
the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  and  who  shall  stand  in  His  holy 
place?  He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart.”  3 

9.  The  idea  of  holiness  became  the  preeminent  feature  of 
Judaism,  so  that  the  favorite  name  for  God  in  Rabbinical 
literature  was  “  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,”  and  the  acme  of 
all  ceremonial  and  moral  laws  alike  was  found  in  “the  Hallow¬ 
ing  of  His  name.”4  If  the  rabbis  as  followers  of  the  Priestly 
Code  were  compelled  to  lay  great  stress  upon  ritual  holiness, 
they  yet  beheld  in  it  the  means  of  moral  purification.  They 
never  lost  sight  of  the  prophetic  principle  that  moral  purity  is 
the  object  of  all  human  life,  for  “the  holy  God  is  sanctified 
through  righteousness.”  5 

1  Rauwenhoff,  1.  c.,  504.  2  Hab.  I,  13. 

3  Psalm  XXIV,  4-5. 

4  L.  Lazarus :  Z.  Charaderistik  d.juedisch.  Ethik,  40-45 ;  M.  Lazarus  :  Ethics 
of  Judaism,  p.  184. 

5  Isa.  V,  16. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


God’s  Wrath  and  Punishment 

1.  Scripture  speaks  frequently  of  the  anger  and  zeal  of  God 
and  of  His  avenging  sword  and  judgment,  so  as  to  give  the 
impression  that  “  the  Old  Testament  God  is  a  God  of  wrath  and 
vengeance.”  As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  attributes  are  merely 
emanations  of  His  holiness,  the  guide  and  incentive  to  moral 
action  in  man.  The  burning  fire  of  the  divine  holiness  aims 
to  awaken  the  dormant  seeds  of  morality  in  the  human  soul 
and  to  ripen  them  into  full  growth.  Whenever  we  to-day 
would  speak  of  pangs  of  conscience,  of  bitter  remorse,  Scripture 
uses  figurative  language  and  describes  how  God’s  wrath  is 
kindled  against  the  wrongdoing  of  the  people,  and  how  fire 
blazes  forth  from  His  nostrils  to  consume  them  in  His  anger. 
The  nearer  man  stands  to  nature,  the  more  tempestuous  are 
the  outbursts  of  his  passion,  and  the  more  violent  is  the  reaction 
of  his  repentance.  Yet  this  very  reaction  impresses  him  as 
though  wrought  from  outside  or  above  by  the  offended  Deity. 
Thus  the  divine  wrath  becomes  a  means  of  moral  education, 
exactly  as  the  parents’  indignation  at  the  child’s  offenses  is 
part  of  his  training  in  morality. 

2.  Thus  the  first  manifestation  of  God’s  holiness  is  His 
indignation  at  falsehood  and  violence,  His  hatred  of  evil  and 
wrongdoing.  The  longer  men  persist  in  sin,  the  more  does  He 
manifest  Himself  as  “the  angry  God,”  as  a  “consuming  fire” 
which  destroys  evil  with  holy  zeal.1  The  husbandman  cannot 

1  Comp.  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  258  f. ;  J.  E.,  art.  “Anger.” 

107 


io8 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


expect  the  good  harvest  until  he  has  weeded  out  the  tares  from 
the  field ;  so  God,  in  educating  man,  begins  by  purging  the 
soul  from  all  its  evil  inclinations,  and  this  zeal  is  all  the  more 
unsparing  as  the  good  is  finally  to  triumph  in  His  eternal  plan 
of  universal  salvation.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  Judaism 
does  not  personify  evil  as  a  power  hostile  to  God,  hence  the 
whole  problem  is  only  one  of  purifying  the  human  soul.  Be¬ 
fore  the  sun  of  God’s  grace  and  mercy  is  to  shine,  bearing  life 
and  healing  for  all  humanity,  His  wrath  and  punitive  justice 
must  ever  burst  forth  to  cleanse  the  world  of  its  sin.  For 
as  long  as  evil  continues  unchecked,  so  long  cannot  the 
divine  holiness  pour  forth  its  all-forbearing  goodness  and 
love. 

3.  On  this  account  the  first  revelation  of  God  on  Sinai 
was  as  “a  jealous  God,  who  visiteth  the  sins  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  and  the  children’s  children  until 
the  third  and  fourth  generation.”  So  the  prophets,  from 
Moses  to  Malachi,  speak  ever  of  God’s  anger,  which  comes 
with  the  fury  of  nature’s  unchained  forces,  to  terrify  and  over¬ 
whelm  all  living  beings.1  Thus  Scripture  considers  all  the 
great  catastrophes  of  the  hoary  past,  —  flood,  earthquakes, 
and  the  rain  of  fire  and  brimstone  that  destroys  cities  —  as 
judgments  of  the  divine  anger  on  sinful  generations.  Wicked¬ 
ness  in  general  causes  His  displeasure,  but  His  wrath  is  pro¬ 
voked  especially  by  violations  of  the  social  order,  by  desecra¬ 
tions  of  His  sanctuary,  or  attacks  on  His  covenant,  and  His 
anger  is  kindled  for  the  poor  and  helpless,  when  they  are 
oppressed  and  deprived  of  their  rights.2 

4.  Thus  the  divine  holiness  was  felt  more  and  more  as  a 
moral  force,  and  that  which  appeared  in  pre-prophetic  times 
to  be  an  elemental  power  of  the  celestial  ire  became  a  refining 

1  Ex.  XX,  5  ;  Isa.  XXX,  27  f. ;  Nahum  I,  5  f. 

2  Ex.  XXII, ’23 ;  Num.  XVII,  10  f. ;  XXV,  3;  Deut.  XXIX,  19;  XXXII, 
21 ;  Isa.  IX,  16. 


GOD’S  WRATH  AND  PUNISHMENT 


109 


flame,  purging  men  of  dross  as  in  a  crucible.  “I  will  not  exe¬ 
cute  the  fierceness  of  Mine  anger,”  says  the  prophet,  “for  I 
am  God  and  not  man,  the  Holy  One  in  the  midst  of  thee,  and 
I  will  not  come  in  fury.”  1  So  sings  the  Psalmist,  “His  anger 
is  but  for  a  moment ;  His  favor  for  a  life-time.” 2  In  the  same 
spirit  the  rabbis  interpreted  the  verse  of  the  Decalogue,  “The 
sin  of  the  fathers  is  visited  upon  the  children  and  children’s  chil¬ 
dren  only  if  they  continue  to  act  as  their  fathers  did,  and  are 
themselves  haters  of  God.”  3 

The  fact  is  that  Israel  in  Canaan  had  become  addicted  to 
all  the  vices  of  idolatry,  and  if  they  were  to  be  trained  to  moral 
purity  and  to  loyalty  to  the  God  of  the  Covenant,  they  must 
be  taught  fear  and  awe  before  the  flame  of  the  divine  wrath. 
Only  after  that  could  the  prophet  address  himself  to  the  con¬ 
science  of  the  individual,  saying : 

“  Who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  the  devouring  fire  ? 

Who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings  ? 

He  that  walketh  righteously,  and  speaketh  uprightly ; 

He  that  despiseth  the  gain  of  oppressions,  that  shaketh  his  hands  from 
holding  of  bribes, 

That  stoppeth  his  ears  from  hearing  of  blood,  and  shutteth  his  eyes 
from  looking  upon  evil ; 

He  shall  dwell  on  high ;  his  place  of  defense  shall  be  the  munitions  of 
rocks ; 

His  bread  shall  be  given,  his  water  shall  be  sure. 

Thine  eyes  shall  see  the  King  in  His  beauty ;  they  shall  behold  a  land 
stretching  afar.” 4 

Here  we  behold  the  fiery  element  of  the  divine  holiness 
partly  depicted  as  a  reality  and  partly  spiritualized.  The 
last  of  the  prophets  compares  the  divine  wrath  to  a  melting 
furnace,  which  on  the  Day  of  Judgment  is  to  consume  evil¬ 
doers  as  stubble,  while  to  those  who  fear  the  Lord  He 


1  Hosea  XI,  9. 

3  Targum  to  Ex.  XX,  3  ;  Sanh.  27  b. 


2  Psalm  XXX. 

4  Isa.  XXXIII,  14-17. 


HO  JEWISH  THEOLOGY 

shall  appear  as  the  sun  of  righteousness  with  healing  on 
its  wings.1 

5.  The  idea  as  expressed  by  the  prophets,  then,  was  that 
God’s  anger  will  visit  the  wicked,  and  particularly  the  ungodly 
nations  of  heathendom,  and  that  He  shall  judge  all  creatures  in 
fire.2  This  was  significantly  altered  under  Persian  influence, 
when  the  Jew  began  to  regard  the  world  to  come  as  promising 
to  the  righteous  greater  bliss  than  the  present  one.  Then  the 
day  of  divine  wrath  meant  doom  eternal  for  evil-doers,  who 
were  to  fall  into  the  fiery  depths  of  Gehenna,  “their  worm  is 
never  to  die  and  their  fire  never  to  be  quenched.”  3  This 
became  the  prevailing  view  of  the  rabbis,  of  the  Apocalyptics 
and  also  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  Church  literature.4 
The  Jewish  propaganda  in  the  Hellenistic  literature,  however, 
combined  the  fire  of  Gehenna  with  the  Stoic,  or  pagan,  view 
of  a  general  world-conflagration,  and  announced  a  general 
doomsday  for  the  heathen  world,  unless  they  be  converted  to 
the  belief  in  Israel’s  one  and  holy  God,  and  ceased  violating  the 
fundamental  (Noachian)  laws  of  humanity.5 

6.  A  higher  view  of  the  punitive  anger  of  God  is  taken  by 
Beruriah,  the  noble  wife  of  R.  Meir,6  —  if,  indeed,  the  wife  of 
the  saintly  Abba  Helkiah  did  not  precede  her  7  —  in  suggest¬ 
ing  a  different  reading  of  the  Biblical  text,  as  to  make  it  offer 
the  lesson:  “not  the  sinners  shall  perish  from  the  earth,  but 
the  sins.”  From  a  more  philosophical  viewpoint  both  Juda  ha 
Levi  and  Maimonides  hold  that  the  anger  which  we  ascribe  to 

1  Mai.  Ill,  2,  19  f. 

2  Deut.  XXXII,  35;  comp.  Sifre,  325;  Geiger:  Urschrift,  247,  regarding 
Samaritan  text.  Zeph.  I,  15;  Isa.  LXVI,  15-16. 

3  Isa.  XVLI,  24. 

4  See  J.  E.,  art.  “ Gehenna”;  Mid.  Teh.  to  Ps.  LXXVI,  n,  and  LXXIX; 
Ned.  32  a;  Taan.  9  b;  Yer.  Taan.  II,  65  b;  Ab.  Zar.  4  a  and  b;  18  b; 
Ber.  7  a;  Shab.  118  a;  Sanh.  nob;  Gen.  R.  VI,  9;  XXVI,  11,  et  al. ;  comp. 
Romans  II,  5 ;  Eph.  V,  6 ;  I  Thess.  I,  10. 

6  Sibyll.  II,  170,  285;  III,  541,  556  f.,  672-697,  760,  810;  Enoch  XCI,  7-9. 

6  Ber.  10  a;  Midr.  Teh.  to  Ps.  CIV,  35.  7  Tan.  23  b. 


GOD’S  WRATH  AND  PUNISHMENT 


ill 


God  is  only  the  transference  of  the  anger  which  we  actually 
feel  at  the  sight  of  evildoing.  Similarly,  when  we  speak  of  the 
consuming  fire  of  hell,  we  depict  the  effect  which  the  fear  of 
God  must  have  on  our  inner  life,  until  the  time  shall  come 
when  we  shun  evil  as  ungodly  and  love  the  good  because  it  is 
both  good  and  God-like.1 

1  Cuzari  IV,  5 ;  Moreh  I,  36,  and  Commentary  to  Sanh.  X,  1. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


God’s  Long-suffering  and  Mercy 

i  .  In  one  of  the  little  known  apocryphal  writings,  the  Testa¬ 
ment  of  Abraham,  a  beautiful  story  is  told  of  the  patriarch. 
Shortly  before  his  death,  the  archangel  Michael  drove  him 
along  the  sky  in  the  heavenly  chariot.  Looking  down  upon 
the  earth,  he  saw  companies  of  thieves  and  murderers,  adul¬ 
terers,  and  other  evil-doers  pursuing  their  nefarious  practices, 
and  in  righteous  indignation  he  cried  out :  “Oh  would  to  God 
that  fire,  destruction,  and  death  should  instantly  befall  these 
criminals!”  No  sooner  had  he  spoken  these  words  than  the 
doom  he  pronounced  came  upon  those  wicked  men.  But 
then  spoke  the  Lord  God  to  the  heavenly  charioteer  Michael : 
“Stop  at  once,  lest  My  righteous  servant  Abraham  in  his  just 
indignation  bring  death  upon  all  My  creatures,  because  they 
are  not  as  righteous  as  he.  He  has  not  learned  to  restrain  his 
anger.”  1  Thus,  indeed,  the  wrath  kindled  at  the  sight  of 
wrongdoing  would  consume  the  sinner  at  once,  were  it  not 
for  another  quality  in  God,  called  in  Scripture  long-suffering. 
By  this  He  restrains  His  anger  and  gives  the  sinner  time  to 
improve  his  ways.  Though  every  wicked  deed  provokes 
Him  to  immediate  punishment,  yet  He  shows  compassion 
upon  the  feeble  mortal.  “Even  in  wrath  He  remembereth 
compassion.”  2  “He  hath  no  delight  in  the  death  of  the  sinner, 
but  that  he  shall  return  from  his  ways  and  live.”  3  The  divine 
holiness  does  not  merely  overwhelm  and  consume ;  its  essen- 

1  Testament  of  Abraham,  A,  X.  2  Hab.  Ill,  2. 

3  Ezek.  XVIII,  23,  32 ;  XXXIII,  n. 


112 


GOD’S  LONG-SUFFERING  AND  MERCY 


113 

tial  aim  is  the  elevation  of  man,  the  effort  to  endow  him  with  a 
higher  life. 

2.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  a  note  of  rigor  and  of  profound 
earnestness  runs  through  the  pages  of  Holy  Writ.  The 
prophets,  law-givers,  and  psalmists  speak  incessantly  of  how 
guilt  brings  doom  upon  the  lands  and  nations.  As  the  father 
who  is  solicitous  of  the  honor  of  his  household  punishes  unre¬ 
lentingly  every  violation  of  morality  within  it,  so  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel  watches  zealously  over  His  people’s  loyalty  to  His 
covenant.  His  glorious  name,  His  holy  majesty  cannot  be 
violated  with  immunity  from  His  dreaded  wrath.  There  is 
nothing  of  the  joyous  abandon  which  was  predominant  in 
the  Greek  nature  and  in  the  Olympian  gods.  The  ideal  of 
holiness  was  presented  by  the  God  of  Israel,  and  all  the  doings 
of  men  appeared  faulty  beside  it. 

But  its  power  of  molding  character  is  shown  by  Judaism  at 
this  very  point,  in  that  it  does  not  stop  at  the  condemnation  of 
the  sinner.  It  holds  forth  the  promise  of  God’s  forbearance  to 
man  in  his  shortcomings,  due  to  His  compassion  on  the  weak¬ 
ness  of  flesh  and  blood.  He  waits  for  man,  erring  and  stum¬ 
bling,  until  by  striving  and  struggling  he  shall  attain  a  higher 
state  of  purity.  This  is  the  bright,  uplifting  side  of  the  Jewish 
idea  of  the  divine  holiness.  In  this  is  the  innermost  nature 
of  God  disclosed.  In  fear  and  awe  of  Him  who  is  enthroned 
on  high,  “ before  whom  even  the  angels  are  not  pure,”  man, 
conscious  of  his  sinfulness,  sinks  trembling  into  the  dust  before 
the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth.  But  the  grace  and  mercy  of  the 
long-suffering  Ruler  lift  him  up  and  imbue  him  with  courage 
and  strength  to  acquire  a  new  life  and  new  energy.  Thus  the 
oppressive  burden  of  guilt  is  transformed  into  an  uplifting 
power  through  the  influence  of  the  holy  God. 

3.  The  predominance  in  God  of  mildness  and  mercy  over 
punitive  anger  is  expressed  most  strikingly  in  the  revelation 
to  Moses,  when  he  had  entreated  God  to  let  him  see  His  ways. 


1 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


114 

The  people  had  provoked  God’s  anger  by  their  faithlessness 
in  the  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  and  He  had  threatened  to 
consume  them,  when  Moses  interceded  in  their  behalf.  Then 
the  Lord  passed  by  him,  and  proclaimed:  “The  Lord,  the 
Lord,  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant 
in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  unto  the  thousandth 
generation,  forgiving  iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin ;  and 
that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty ;  visiting  the  iniquity  of 
the  fathers  upon  the  children  and  upon  the  children’s  children, 
unto  the  third  and  unto  the  fourth  generation.”  1  Such  a 
passage  shows  clearly  the  progress  in  the  knowledge  of  God’s 
nature.  For  Abraham  and  the  traditions  of  the  patriarchs 
God  was  the  righteous  Judge,  punishing  the  transgressors. 
He  is  represented  in  the  same  way  in  the  Decalogue  on  Sinai.2 
Was  this  to  be  the  final  word?  Was  Israel  chosen  by  God  as 
His  covenant  people,  only  to  encounter  the  full  measure  of  His 
just  but  relentless  anger  and  to  be  consumed  at  once  for  the 
violation  of  this  covenant?  Therefore  Moses  wrestled  with 
his  God.  Filled  with  compassionate  love  for  his  people,  he  is 
willing  to  offer  his  life  as  their  ransom.  And  should  God  him¬ 
self  lack  this  fullness  of  love  and  pity,  of  which  even  a  human 
being  is  capable?  Then,  as  from  a  dark  cloud,  there  flashed 
suddenly  upon  him  the  light  of  a  new  revelation ;  he  became 
aware  of  the  higher  truth,  that  above  the  austerity  of  God’s 
avenging  anger  prevails  the  tender  forgiveness  of  His  mercy ; 
that  beyond  the  consuming  zeal  of  His  punitive  justice  shines 
the  sun-like  splendor  of  His  grace  and  love.  The  rabbis  find 
the  expression  of  mercy  especially  in  the  name  JHVH  ( i.e . 
“the  One  who  shall  ever  be”)  which  is  significantly  placed 
here  at  the  head  of  the  divine  attributes.  Indeed,  only  He 
who  is  the  same  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  and  to  whom 
to-morrow  is  like  yesterday,  can  show  forbearance  to  erring 

1  Ex.  XXXII-XXXIV,  7.  Comp.  Num.  XIV,  18. 

s  Gen.  XIX,  1-28;  Ex.  XX,  5-6. 


GOD’S  LONG-SUFFERING  AND  MERCY 


Ii5 

man,  because  in  whatsoever  he  has  failed  yesterday  he  may 
make  good  to-morrow. 

4.  Like  Moses,  the  master  of  the  prophets,  so  the  prophet 
Hosea  also  learned  in  hard  spiritual  struggle  to  know  the  divine 
attribute  of  mercy  and  lovingkindness.  His  own  wife  had 
proved  faithless,  and  had  broken  the  marital  covenant ;  still 
his  love  survived,  so  that  he  granted  her  forgiveness  when  she 
was  forsaken,  and  took  her  back  to  his  home.  Then,  in  his 
distress  at  the  God-forsaken  state  of  Israel  through  her  faith¬ 
lessness,  he  asked  himself :  “  Will  God  reject  forever  the  nation 
which  He  espoused,  because  it  broke  the  covenant?  Will 
not  He  also  grant  forgiveness  and  mercy?”  The  divine 
answer  came  to  him  out  of  the  depths  of  his  own  compassionate 
soul.  Upon  the  crown  of  God’s  majesty  which  Amos  had 
beheld  all  effulgent  with  justice  and  righteousness,  he  placed 
the  most  precious  gem,  reflecting  the  highest  quality  of  God  — - 
His  gracious  and  all-forgiving  love.1  Whether  the  priority 
in  this  great  truth  belongs  to  Hosea  or  Moses  is  a  question  for 
historical  Bible  research  to  answer,  but  it  is  of  no  consequence 
to  Jewish  theology. 

5.  Certainly  Scripture  represents  God  too  much  after 
human  fashion,  when  it  ascribes  to  him  changes  of  mood  from 
anger  to  compassion,  or  speaks  of  His  repentance.2  But  we 
must  bear  in  mind  that  the  prophets  obtained  their  insight 
into  the  ways  of  God  by  this  very  process  of  transferring  their 
own  experience  to  the  Deity.  And  on  the  other  hand,  we  are 
told  that  “God  is  not  a  man  that  He  should  lie,  neither  the 
son  of  man  that  He  should  repent.”  3  All  these  anthropo- 

1  Hosea  I— III ;  XI,  1-9;  XIV,  5.  Comp.  Micah  XIII,  18 ;  Jer.  Ill,  8-12 ; 
Isa.  LIV,  6-8;  LVII,  16  f. ;  Joel  II,  13;  Jonah  IV,  2,  10  f. ;  Lam.  Ill,  31; 
Ps.  LXXVIII,  38  et  al.  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  263  f. ;  Davidson  Theology  of 

•  0.  T.,  132  f. 

2  Gen.  VI,  6;  I  Sam.  XV,  11;  Jer.  XVIII,  7-10;  Joel  II,  14;  Jonah  III, 
10;  IV,  2. 

3  Num.  XXIII,  19 ;  I  Sam.  XV,  29 ;  see  Targum  and  commentaries. 


n6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


morphic  pictures  of  God  were  later  avoided  by  the  ancient 
Biblical  translators  by  means  of  paraphrase,  and  by  the  philos¬ 
ophers  by  means  of  allegory.1 

6.  According  to  the  Midrashic  interpretation  of  the  passage 
from  the  Pentateuch  quoted  above,  Moses  desired  to  ascertain 
whether  God  ruled  the  world  with  His  justice  or  with  His 
mercy,  and  the  answer  was :  “Behold,  I  shall  let  My  goodness 
pass  before  thee.  For  I  owe  nothing  to  any  of  My  creatures, 
but  My  actions  are  prompted  only  by  My  grace  and  good  will, 
through  which  I  give  them  all  that  they  possess.”  2  According 
to  Judaism  justice  and  mercy  are  intertwined  in  God’s  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  world ;  the  former  is  the  pillar  of  the  cosmic 
structure,  and  the  latter  the  measuring  line.  No  mortal  could 
stand  before  God,  were  justice  the  only  standard ;  but  we  sub¬ 
sist  on  His  mercy,  which  lends  us  the  boons  of  life  without  our 
meriting  them.  That  which  is  not  good  in  us  now  is  to  become 
good  through  our  effort  toward  the  best.  God’s  grace  under¬ 
lies  this  possibility. 

Accordingly,  the  divine  holiness  has  two  aspects,  the  over¬ 
whelming  wrath  of  His  justice  and  the  uplifting  grace  of  His 
long-suffering.  Without  justice  there  could  be  no  fear  of 
God,  no  moral  earnestness;  without  mercy  only  condemna¬ 
tion  and  perdition  would  remain.  As  the  rabbis  tell  us,  both 
justice  and  mercy  had  their  share  in  the  creation  of  man,  for 
in  man  both  good  and  bad  appear  and  struggle  for  supremacy. 
All  generations  need  the  divine  grace  that  they  may  have  time 
and  opportunity  for  improvement.3 

7.  Thus  this  conception  of  grace  is  far  deeper  and  worthier  of 
God  than  is  that  of  Paulinian  Christianity ;  for  grace  in  Paul’s 
sense  is  arbitrary  in  action  and  dependent  upon  the  acceptance 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Anthropomorphism  and  Allegorical  Interpretation. 

2  Tanh.  Waethhanan,  ed.  Buber,  3. 

3  Gen.  R.  VIII,  4-5.  See  Morris  Joseph  :  Judaism  as  Creed  and  Life,  p.  59, 
90-95. 


GOD’S  LONG-SUFFERING  AND  MERCY 


117 

of  a  creed,  therefore  the  very  reverse  of  impartial  justice.  In 
Judaism  divine  grace  is  not  offered  as  a  bait  to  make  men 
believe,  but  as  an  incentive  to  moral  improvement.  The  God 
of  holiness,  who  inflicts  wounds  upon  the  guilty  soul  by  bitter 
remorse,  offers  also  healing  through  His  compassion.  Justice 
and  mercy  are  not  two  separate  powers  or  persons  in  the 
Deity,  as  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  they  are  the  two 
sides  of  the  same  divine  power.  “I  am  the  Lord  before  sin 
was  committed,  and  I  am  the  Lord  after  sin  is  committed”  — 
so  the  rabbis  explain  the  repetition  of  the  name  JHVH  in  the 
revelation  to  Moses.1 

1 R.  h.  Sh.  17  b;  compare,  J.  Davidson,  134;  Koeberle:  Suende  und 
Gnade ,  1905,  p.  625,  634  f. ;  but  p.  658,  614,  are  misleading;  Weber,  1.  c.,  154, 
260,  303  f.,  altogether  misrepresents  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  grace. 


CHAPTER  XIX 


God’s  Justice 

i.  The  unshakable  faith  of  the  Jewish  people  was  ever  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  consciousness  that  its  God  is  a  God  of  justice. 
The  conviction  that  He  will  not  suffer  wrong  to  go  unpunished 
was  read  into  all  the  stories  of  the  hoary  past.  The  Babylo¬ 
nian  form  of  these  legends  in  common  with  all  ancient  folk-lore 
ascribes  human  calamity  to  blind  fate  or  to  the  caprice  of  the 
gods,  but  the  Biblical  narratives  assume  that  evil  does  not 
befall  men  undeserved,  and  therefore  always  ascribe  ruin  or 
death  to  human  transgression.  So  the  Jewish  genius  beheld 
in  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  a  divine  judgment 
upon  the  depraved  inhabitants,  and  derived  from  it  a  lesson 
for  the  household  of  Abraham  that  they  should  “keep  the  way 
of  the  Lord  to  do  righteousness  and  justice.”  1  The  funda¬ 
mental  principle  of  Judaism  throughout  the  ages  has  been  the 
teaching  of  the  patriarch  that  “the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
cannot  act  unjustly,” 2  even  though  the  varying  events  of 
history  force  the  problem  of  justice  upon  the  attention  of 
Jeremiah,3  the  Psalmists,4  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job,5  and 
the  Talmudical  sages.6  “Righteousness  and  justice  are  the 
foundations  of  Thy  throne”  7  —  this  is  the  sum  and  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  religious  experience  of  Israel.  At  the  same  time 
man  realizes  how  far  from  his  grasp  is  the  divine  justice: 

1  Gen.  XVIII,  19.  2  Gen.  XVIII,  25.  3  Jer.  XII,  1. 

4  Ps.  LXXIII,  12.  5  Job  X,  22  f. 

6  Yer.  Hag.  II,  1 ;  Elisha  ben  Abuyah.  7  Ps.  LXXXIX,  15. 

118 


GOD’S  JUSTICE 


119 


“Thy  righteousness  is  like  the  mighty  mountains ;  Thy  judg¬ 
ments  are  like  the  great  deep.”  1 

2.  The  Master-builder  of  the  moral  world  made  justice  the 
supporting  pillar  of  the  entire  creation.  “He  is  The  Rock, 
His  work  is  perfect,  for  all  His  ways  are  just ;  a  God  of  faith¬ 
fulness  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  right  is  He.”  2  There 
can  be  no  moral  world  order  without  a  retributive  justice, 
which  leaves  no  infringement  of  right  unpunished,  just  as  no 
social  order  can  exist  without  laws  to  protect  the  weak  and  to 
enforce  general  respect.  The  God  of  Judaism  rules  over  man¬ 
kind  as  Guardian  and  Vindicator  of  justice ;  no  wrong  escapes 
His  scrutinizing  gaze.  This  fundamental  doctrine  invested 
history,  of  both  the  individual  and  the  nation,  with  a  moral 
significance  beyond  that  of  any  other  religious  or  ethical 
system. 

Whatever  practice  or  sense  of  justice  may  exist  among  the 
rest  of  mankind,  it  is  at  best  a  glimpse  of  that  divine  righteous¬ 
ness  which  leads  us  on  and  becomes  a  mighty  force  compelling 
us,  not  only  to  avoid  wrongdoing,  but  to  combat  it  with  all  the 
passion  of  an  indignant  soul  and  eradicate  it  wherever  possi¬ 
ble.  Though  in  our  daily  experience  justice  may  be  sadly 
lacking,  we  still  cling  to  the  moral  axiom  that  God  will  lead 
the  right  to  victory  and  will  hurl  iniquity  into  the  abyss. 
As  the  sages  remark  in  the  Midrash :  “How  could  short-sighted 
and  short-lived  man  venture  to  assert,  ‘All  His  ways  are  just/ 
were  it  not  for  the  divine  revelation  by  which  the  eyes  of  Moses 
were  opened,  so  that  he  could  gaze  into  the  very  depths  of 
life?”  3  is,  the  idea  of  divine  justice  is  revealed,  not 

in  the  world  as  it  is,  but  in  the  world  as  it  should  be,  the  ideal 
cosmos  which  lives  in  the  spirit. 

1  Ps. XXXVI,  7 ;  see  Davidson,  1.  c.,  143  f. ;  J.  E.,  art.  Justice;  Hamburger : 
Realencyclopaedie \  art.  Gerechtigkeit ;  Dilimann,  1.  c.,  270  f. ;  Strauss,  1.  c.,  596- 
604.  Bousset,  437  f.,  is  misleading. 

2  Deut.  XXXII,  4. 


3  Tanh.,  Jithro  5. 


120 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


3.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  justice  is  recognized  as  a  binding 
force  even  by  peoples  on  a  low  cultural  plane,  and  the  Deity  is 
generally  regarded  as  the  guardian  of  justice,  exactly  as  in 
Judaism.  This  fact  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  oath  in  con¬ 
nection  with  judicial  procedure  among  many  nations.  Both 
Roman  jurisprudence  and  Greek  ethics  declare  justice  to  be 
the  foundation  of  the  social  life.  Nevertheless  the  Jewish 
ideal  of  justice  cannot  be  identified  with  that  of  the  law  and  the 
courts.  The  law  is  part  of  the  social  system  of  the  State,  by 
which  the  relations  of  individuals  are  determined  and  upheld. 
The  maintenance  of  this  social  order,  of  the  status  quo ,  is 
considered  justice  by  the  law,  whatever  injustice  to  individuals 
may  result.  But  the  Jewish  idea  of  justice  is  not  reactionary; 
it  owes  to  the  prophets  its  position  as  the  dominating  principle 
of  the  world,  the  peculiar  essence  of  God,  and  therefore  the 
ultimate  ideal  of  human  life.  They  fought  for  right  with  an 
insistence  which  vindicated  its  moral  significance  forever,  and 
in  scathing  words  of  indignation  which  still  burn  in  the  soul 
they  denounced  oppression  wherever  it  appeared.  The  crimes 
of  the  mighty  against  the  weak,  they  held,  could  not  be  atoned 
for  by  the  outward  forms  of  piety.  Right  and  justice  are  not 
simply  matters  for  the  State  and  the  social  order,  but  belong 
to  God,  who  defends  the  cause  of  the  helpless  and  the  homeless, 
“who  executes  the  judgment  of  the  fatherless  and  the  widow,” 
“who  regardeth  not  persons,  nor  taketh  bribes. ”  1  Iniquity  is 
hateful  to  Him ;  it  cannot  be  covered  up  by  pious  acts,  nor 
be  justified  by  good  ends.  “Justice  is  God’s.”  2  Thus  every 
violation  of  justice,  whether  from  sordid  self-seeking  or  from 
tender  compassion,  is  a  violation  of  God’s  cause;  and  every 
vindication  of  justice,  every  strengthening  of  the  power  of 
right  in  society,  is  a  triumph  of  God. 

4.  Accordingly,  the  highest  principle  of  ethics  in  Judaism, 
the  cardinal  point  in  the  government  of  the  world,  is  not  love, 

1  Deut.  X,  17-18.  2  Deut.  I,  17. 


GOD’S  JUSTICE 


1 2 1 


but  justice.  Love  has  the  tendency  to  undermine  the  right 
and  to  effeminize  society.  Justice,  on  the  other  hand,  develops 
the  moral  capacity  of  every  man ;  it  aims  not  merely  to  avoid 
wrong,  but  to  promote  and  develop  the  right  for  the  sake  of 
the  perfect  state  of  morality.  True  justice  cannot  remain  a 
passive  onlooker  when  the  right  or  liberty  of  any  human  being 
is  curtailed,  but  strains  every  effort  to  prevent  violence  and 
oppression.  It  battles  for  the  right,  until  it  has  triumphed 
over  every  injustice.  This  practical  conception  of  right  can  be 
traced  through  all  Jewish  literature  and  doctrine;  through 
the  laws  of  Moses,  to  whom  is  ascribed  the  maxim:  “Let  the 
right  have  its  way,  though  it  bore  holes  through  the  rock 
through  the  flaming  words  of  the  prophets  2 ;  through  the 
Psalmists,  who  spoke  such  words  as  these :  “Thou  art  not  a 
God  who  hath  pleasure  in  wickedness ;  evil  shall  not  sojourn 
with  Thee.  The  arrogant  shall  not  stand  in  Thy  sight; 
Thou  hatest  all  workers  of  iniquity.”  3 

Nor  does  justice  stop  with  the  prohibition  of  evil.  The 
very  arm  that  strikes  down  the  presumptuous  transgressor 
turns  to  lift  up  the  meek  and  endow  him  with  strength.  Jus¬ 
tice  becomes  a  positive  power  for  the  right;  it  becomes 
Zedakah ,  righteousness  or  true  benevolence,  and  aims  to  re¬ 
adjust  the  inequalities  of  life  by  kindness  and  love.  It  engen¬ 
ders  that  deeper  sense  of  justice  which  claims  the  right  of  the 
weak  to  protection  by  the  arm  of  the  strong. 

5.  Hence  comes  the  truth  of  Matthew  Arnold’s  striking 
summary  of  Israel’s  Law  and  Prophets  in  his  “Literature  and 
Dogma”,  as  “The  Power,  not  ourselves,  that  maketh  for 
righteousness.”  Still,  when  we  trace  the  development  of  this 
central  thought  in  the  soul  of  the  Jewish  people,  we  find  that  it 
arose  from  a  peculiar  mythological  conception.  The  God  of 
Sinai  had  manifested  Himself  in  the  devastating  elements  of 

1  Yeb.  92  a;  Yer.  Sanh.  I,  18  b. 

2  Amos  V,  24;  Isa.  I,  17,  28;  XXVIII,  17;  LIV,  14.  3  Ps.  V,  5-6. 


122 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


nature  —  fire,  storm,  and  hail ;  later,  the  prophetic  genius  of 
Israel  saw  Him  as  a  moral  power  who  destroyed  wickedness  by 
these  very  phenomena  in  order  that  right  should  prevail.  At 
first  the  covenant- God  of  Israel  hurls  the  plagues  of  heaven 
upon  the  hostile  Egyptians  and  Canaanites,  the  oppressors  of 
His  people.  Afterward  the  great  prophets  speak  of  the  Day  of 
JHVH  which  would  come  at  the  end  of  days,  when  God  will 
execute  His  judgment  upon  the  heathen  nations  by  pouring 
forth  all  the  terrors  of  nature  upon  them.  The  natural  forces 
of  destruction  are  utilized  by  the  Ruler  of  heaven  as  means  of 
moral  purification.  “For  by  fire  will  the  Lord  contend.”  1 

In  this  process  the  sense  of  right  became  progressively  re¬ 
fined,  so  that  God  was  made  the  Defender  of  the  cause  of  the 
oppressed,  and  the  holiest  of  duties  became  the  protection  of 
the  forsaken  and  unfortunate.  Justice  and  right  were  thus 
lifted  out  of  the  civil  or  forensic  sphere  into  that  of  divine 
holiness,  and  the  struggle  for  the  down-trodden  became  an 
imperative  duty.  Judaism  finds  its  strength  in  the  oft- 
repeated  doctrine  that  the  moral  welfare  of  the  world  rests 
upon  justice.  “The  King’s  strength  is  that  he  loveth  justice,” 
says  the  Psalmist,  and  commenting  upon  this  the  Midrash 
says, “Not  might,  but  right  forms  the  foundation  of  the  world’s 
peace.”  2 

6.  Social  life,  therefore,  must  be  built  upon  the  firm  founda¬ 
tion  of  justice,  the  full  recognition  of  the  rights  of  all  individuals 
and  all  classes.  It  can  be  based  neither  upon  the  formal 
administration  of  law  nor  upon  the  elastic  principle  of  love, 
which  too  often  tolerates,  or  even  approves  certain  types  of 
injustice.  Judaism  has  been  working  through  the  centuries 
to  realize  the  ideal  of  justice  to  all  mankind ;  therefore  the  Jew 
has  suffered  and  waited  for  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  God  of 
justice.  God’s  kingdom  of  justice  is  to  be  established,  not  in 
a  world  to  come,  but  in  the  world  that  now  is,  in  the  life  of 
1  Isa.  LXVI,  16.  2  Ps.  XCIX,  4;  Tanh.  Mishpatim  1. 


GOD’S  JUSTICE 


123 


men  and  nations.  As  the  German  poet  has  it,  “Die  Weltge- 
schichte  ist  das  Weltgericht”  (the  history  of  the  world  is  the 
world’s  tribunal  of  justice). 

7.  The  recognition  of  God  as  the  righteous  Ruler  implies  a 
dominion  of  absolute  justice  which  allows  no  wrongdoing  to 
remain  unpunished  and  no  meritorious  act  to  remain  unre¬ 
warded.  The  moral  and  intellectual  maturity  of  the  people, 
however,  must  determine  how  they  conceive  retribution  in  the 
divine  judgment.  Under  the  simple  conditions  of  patriarchal 
life,  when  common  experience  seemed  to  be  in  harmony  with 
the  demands  of  divine  justice,  when  the  evil-doer  seemed  to 
meet  his  fate  and  the  worthy  man  to  enjoy  his  merited  pros¬ 
perity,  reward  and  punishment  could  well  be  expressed  by 
the  Bible  in  terms  of  national  prosperity  and  calamity.  The 
prophets,  impressed  by  the  political  and  moral  decline  of 
their  era,  announced  for  both  Israel  and  the  other  nations  a 
day  of  judgment  to  come,  when  God  will  manifest  Himself  as 
the  righteous  Ruler  of  the  world.  In  fact,  those  great 
preachers  of  righteousness  announced  for  all  time  the  truth  of  a 
moral  government  of  the  world ,  with  terror  for  the  malefactors 
and  the  assurance  of  peace  and  salvation  for  the  righteous. 
“He  will  judge  the  world  with  righteousness,  and  the  peoples 
with  equity”  becomes  a  song  of  joyous  confidence  and  hope 
on  the  lips  of  the  Psalmist.1  This  final  triumph  of  justice  does 
not  depend,  as  Christian  theologians  assert,  on  the  mere  out¬ 
ward  conformity  of  Israel  to  the  law.2  On  the  contrary,  it 
offers  to  the  innocent  sufferer  the  hope  that  “his  right  shall 
break  forth  as  light,”  while  “the  wicked  shall  be  put  to  silence 
in  darkness.”  3  We  must  admit,  indeed,  that  the  Biblical 
idea  of  retribution  still  has  too  much  of  the  earthly  flavor,  and 

*Ps.  XCVI,  13;  XCVIII,  9. 

2  See  Bousset,  1.  c.,  357-366;  Weber,  1.  c.,  259-279,  and  comp.  Suk.  30  a, 
where  it  is  stated,  referring  to  Isa.  LXI,  8,  that  “good  deeds  can  never  justify 
evil  acts.” 

3  Hosea  VI,  6 ;  Ps.  XXXVII,  6;  I  Sam.  II,  9. 


124 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


often  lacks  true  spirituality.  The  explanation  of  this  lies  in 
the  desire  of  the  expounders  of  Judaism  that  this  world  should 
be  regarded  as  the  battle-ground  between  the  good  and  the 
bad,  that  the  victory  of  the  good  is  to  be  decided  here,  and  that 
the  idea  of  justice  should  not  assume  the  character  of  other¬ 
worldliness. 

8.  It  is  true  that  neither  the  prophets,  such  as  Jeremiah, 
nor  the  sages,  such  as  the  authors  of  Job  and  Koheleth,  actually 
solved  the  great  enigma  which  has  baffled  all  nations  and  ages, 
the  adjustment  of  merit  and  destiny  by  divine  righteousness. 
Yet  even  a  doubter  like  Job  does  not  despair  of  his  own  sense 
of  justice,  and  wrestles  with  his  God  in  the  effort  to  obtain  a 
deeper  insight.  Still  the  great  mass  of  people  are  not  satisfied 
with  an  unfulfilled  yearning  and  seeking.  The  various  reli¬ 
gions  have  gradually  transferred  the  final  adjustment  of  merit 
and  destiny  to  the  hereafter;  the  rewards  and  punishments 
awaiting  man  after  death  have  been  depicted  glaringly  in 
colors  taken  from  this  earthly  life.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
Judaism  was  influenced  by  this  almost  universal  view.  The 
mechanical  form  of  the  principle  of  justice  demands  that  “with 
the  same  measure  one  metes  out,  it  shall  be  meted  out  to 
him,”  1  and  this  could  not  be  found  either  in  human  justice 
or  in  human  destiny.  Therefore  the  popular  mind  naturally 
turned  to  the  world  to  come,  expecting  there  that  just  retribu¬ 
tion  which  is  lacking  on  earth. 

Only  superior  minds  could  ascend  to  that  higher  ethical 
conception  where  compensation  is  no  longer  expected,  but 
man  seeks  the  good  and  happiness  of  others  and  finds  therein 
his  highest  satisfaction.  As  Ben  Azzai  expresses  it,  “The 
reward  of  virtue  is  virtue,  and  the  punishment  of  sin  is  sin.”  2 
At  this  point  justice  merges  into  divine  holiness. 

1  Sota  I,  7-8;  Tos.  SotaHI;  Mek.  Shirah4;  B.  Wisdom  XV,  3 ;  XIX,  17; 
Jubilees  IV,  3,  elsewhere,  comp.  Math.  VII,  2,  and  parallels. 

2  Aboth  IV,  2. 


GOD’S  JUSTICE 


125 

9.  The  idea  of  divine  justice  exerted  its  uplifting  force  in 
one  more  way  in  Judaism.  The  recognition  of  God  as  the 
righteous  Judge  of  the  world  —  Zidduk  ha  Din 1  —  is  to  bring 
consolation  and  endurance  to  the  afflicted,  and  to  remove 
from  their  hearts  the  bitter  sting  of  despair  and  doubt.  The 
rabbis  called  God  “the  Righteous  One  of  the  universe,’ ’ 2  as  if 
to  indicate  that  God  himself  is  meant  by  the  Scriptural  verse, 
“The  righteous  is  an  everlasting  foundation  of  the  world.”  3 

Far  remote  from  Judaism,  however,  is  the  doctrine  that  God 
would  consign  an  otherwise  righteous  man  to  eternal  doom, 
because  he  belongs  to  another  creed  or  another  race  than  that 
of  the  Jew.  Wherever  the  heathens  are  spoken  of  as  con¬ 
demned  at  the  last  judgment,  the  presumption  based  upon 
centuries  of  sad  experience  was  that  their  lives  were  full  of 
injustice  and  wickedness.  Indeed,  milder  teachers,  whose 
view  became  the  accepted  one,  maintained  that  truly  righteous 
men  are  found  among  the  heathen,  who  have  therefore  as 
much  claim  upon  eternal  salvation  as  the  pious  ones  of  Israel.4 

1  See  Levy,  W.  B. :  Zidduk;  comp.  Ex.  IX,  27;  Lam.  I,  18;  Neh.  IX,  33. 

2  Gen.  R.  XLIX,  19;  Yoma  37  a.  3  Prov.  X,  25. 

4  See  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2;  Sanh.  105  a;  Yalkut  Isaiah  296;  Crescas:  Or 

Adonai,  III,  44. 


CHAPTER  XX 


God’s  Love  and  Compassion 

i.  As  justice  forms  the  basis  of  human  morality,  with  kind¬ 
ness  and  benevolence  as  milder  elements  to  mitigate  its  stern¬ 
ness,  so,  according  to  the  Jewish  view,  mercy  and  love  rep¬ 
resent  the  milder  side  of  God,  but  by  no  means  a  higher 
attribute  counteracting  His  justice.  Love  can  supplement  jus¬ 
tice,  but  cannot  replace  it.  The  sages  say : 1  “When  the  Creator 
saw  that  man  could  not  endure,  if  measured  by  the  standard 
of  strict  justice,  He  joined  His  attribute  of  mercy  to  that  of 
justice,  and  created  man  by  the  combined  principle  of  both.” 
The  divine  compassion  with  human  frailty,  felt  by  both  Moses 
and  Hosea,  manifests  itself  in  God’s  mercy.  Were  it  not  for 
the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  justice  would  have  sufficed.  But 
the  divine  plan  of  salvation  demands  redeeming  love  which 
wins  humanity  step  by  step  for  higher  moral  ends.  The  educa¬ 
tional  value  of  this  love  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  a  gift  of  grace, 
bestowed  on  man  by  the  fatherly  love  of  God  to  ward  off  the 
severity  of  full  retribution.  His  pardon  must  conduce  to  a 
deeper  moral  earnestness.2  “For  with  Thee  there  is  forgive¬ 
ness  that  Thou  mayest  be  feared.”  3  R.  Akiba  says:  “The 
world  is  judged  by  the  divine  attribute  of  goodness.”  4 

1  Gen.  R.  VIII,  4-5;  XII,  15;  Midr.  Teh.  to  Ps.  LXXXIX,  2;  comp. 
Ben  Sira,  XVIII,  11 ;  Testaments  of  XII  Patr. :  Zebulon  9 ;  Ap.  Baruch  XLVIII, 
14;  IV  Esdras  VIII,  31;  Psalms  of  Solomon  IX,  7;  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  8, 

13. 

2  See  J.  E.,  art.  “Love.”  Both  Weber,  1.  c.,  57  f.  and  Bousset,  1.  c.,  443  f. 
show  Christian  bias. 

3  Ps.  CXXX,  4. 

4  Aboth  III,  19;  comp.  B.  Wisdom  XI,  23,  26;  XII,  16,  18;  Ben  Sira, 
II,  18. 


126 


GOD’S  LOVE  AND  COMPASSION 


127 


2.  As  a  matter  of  course,  in  the  Biblical  view  God’s  mercy  was 
realized  at  first  only  with  regard  to  Israel  and  was  afterward 
extended  gradually  to  humanity  at  large.  The  generation  of 
the  flood  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  perished  on  account 
of  their  guilt,  and  only  the  righteous  were  saved.  This  attitude 
holds  throughout  the  Bible  until  the  late  book  of  Jonah,  with 
its  lesson  of  God’s  forgiveness  even  for  the  heathen  city  of 
Nineveh  after  due  repentance.  In  the  later  Psalms  the  divine 
attributes  of  mercy  are  expanded  and  applied  to  all  the  crea¬ 
tures  of  God.1  According  to  the  school  of  Hillel,  whenever 
the  good  and  evil  actions  of  any  man  are  found  equal  in  the 
scales  of  justice,  God  inclines  the  balances  toward  the  side  of 
mercy.2  Nay  more,  in  the  words  of  Samuel,  the  Babylonian 
teacher,  God  judges  the  nations  by  the  noblest  types  they 
produce.3 

The  ruling  Sadducean  priesthood  insisted  on  the  rigid 
enforcement  of  the  law.  The  party  of  the  pious,  the  Hasidim, 
however,  —  according  to  the  liturgy,  the  apocryphal  and  the 
rabbinical  literature,  —  appealed  to  the  mercy  of  God  in  song 
and  prayer,  acknowledging  their  failings  in  humility,  and  made 
kindness  and  love  their  special  objects  in  life.  Therefore  with 
their  ascendancy  the  divine  attributes  of  mercy  and  com¬ 
passion  were  accentuated.  God  himself,  we  are  told,  was 
heard  praying :  “Oh  that  My  attribute  of  mercy  may  prevail 
over  My  attribute  of  justice,  so  that  grace  alone  may  be 
bestowed  upon  My  children  on  earth.”  4  And  the  second  word 
of  the  Decalogue  was  so  interpreted  that  God’s  mercy  — 
which  is  said  to  extend  “to  the  thousandth  generation”  —  is 
five  hundred  times  as  powerful  as  His  punitive  justice,  — 
which  is  applied  “to  the  third  and  fourth  generation.”  5 

1  Ps.  CXLIV,  8-9 ;  comp.  Ben  Sira,  XVIII,  13. 

2  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  3.  3  Yer.  R.  h.  Sh.  I,  57  a.  4  Ber.  7  a. 

5  Tos.  Sota  IV,  1,  with  reference  to  Ex.  XX,  5-6.  The  plural,  laalafim ,  is 

taken  to  mean  two  thousand. 


128 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


3.  Divine  mercy  shows  itself  in  the  law,  where  compassion 
is  enjoined  on  all  suffering  creatures.  Profound  sympathy 
with  the  oppressed  is  echoed  in  the  ancient  law  of  the  poor 
who  had  to  give  up  his  garment  as  a  pledge :  “  When  he  crieth 
unto  Me,  I  shall  hear,  for  I  am  gracious.” 1  In  the  old  Baby¬ 
lonian  code,  might  was  the  arbiter  of  right,2  but  the  unique 
genius  of  the  Jew  is  shown  in  adapting  this  same  legal  material 
to  its  impulse  of  compassion.  The  cry  of  the  innocent  sufferer, 
of  the  forsaken  and  fatherless,  rises  up  to  God’s  throne  and 
secures  there  his  right  against  the  oppressor.  Thus  in  the 
Mosaic  law  and  throughout  Jewish  literature  God  calls  him¬ 
self  “the  Judge  of  the  widow,”  “the  Father  of  the  fatherless,”3 
“a  Stronghold  to  the  needy.”4  He  calls  the  poor,  “My 
people,”5  and,  as  the  rabbis  say,  He  loves  the  persecuted,  not 
the  persecutors.6 

4.  Even  to  dumb  beasts  God  extends  His  mercy.  This 
Jewish  tenderness  is  an  inheritance  from  the  shepherd  life  of 
the  patriarchs,  who  were  eager  to  quench  the  thirst  of  the 
animals  in  their  care  before  they  thought  of  their  own  com¬ 
fort.7  This  sense  of  sympathy  appears  in  the  Biblical  pre¬ 
cepts  as  to  the  overburdened  beast,8  the  ox  treading  the  corn,9 
and  the  mother-beast  or  mother-bird  with  her  young,10  as  well 
as  the  Talmudic  rule  first  to  feed  the  domestic  animals  and 
then  sit  down  to  the  meal.11  This  has  remained  a  characteristic 
trait  of  Judaism.  Thus,  in  connection  with  the  verse  of  the 
Psalm,  “His  tender  mercies  are  over  all  His  works,”12  it  is 
related  of  Rabbi  Judah  the  Saint,  the  redactor  of  the  Mishnah, 

1  Ex.  XXII,  26;  comp.  21,  23. 

2  See  Harper :  Code  of  Hammurabi ,  1900  ;  Oettli :  D.  Gesetz  Hammurabis 
und  d.  Thora  Israels ,  1903 ;  Cohn :  D.  Gesetz  Hammurabis ,  Zurich,  1903 ; 
Grimm :  D.  Gesetz  C hammurabis  und  Moses,  Cologne,  1903.  Also  M.  Jastrow, 
Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Traditions,  p.  255-319. 

8  Deut.  X,  18 ;  Ps.  LXXIII.  4  Isa.  XXV,  4.  6  Ex.  XXII,  24. 

6  Ex.  R.  XXVII,  5 ;  Eccles.  R.  to  III,  15.  7  Gen.  XXIV,  19. 

8  Ex.  XXIII,  5.  9  Deut.  XXV,  4.  10  Lev.  XX,  28 ;  Deut.  XXII,  6. 

n  Git.  62  a,  with  reference  to  Deut.  XI,  15.  12  Ps.  CXLV,  9. 


GOD’S  LOVE  AND  COMPASSION 


129 


that  he  was  afflicted  with  pain  for  thirteen  years,  and  gave 
as  reason  that  he  once  struck  and  kicked  away  a  calf  which 
had  run  to  him  moaning  for  protection  ;  he  was  finally  relieved, 
after  he  had  taught  his  household  to  have  pity  even  on  the 
smallest  of  creatures.1  In  fact,  Rabban  Gamaliel,  his  grand¬ 
father,  had  taught  before  him:  “ Whosoever  has  compassion 
on  his  fellow-creatures,  on  him  God  will  have  compassion.”2 
The  sages  often  interpret  the  phrase  “To  walk  in  the  way  of 
the  Lord”  —  that  is,  “As  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  is 
merciful,  so  be  ye  also  merciful.”  3 

5.  Thus  the  rabbis  came  to  regard  love  as  the  innermost 
part  of  God’s  being.  God  loves  mankind ,  is  the  highest  stage 
of  consciousness  of  God,  but  this  can  be  attained  only  by  the 
closest  relation  of  the  human  soul  to  the  Most  High,  after 
severe  trials  have  softened  and  humanized  the  spirit.  It  is  not 
accidental  that  Scripture  speaks  often  of  God’s  goodness, 
mercy,  and  grace,  but  seldom  mentions  His  love.  Possibly 
the  term  ahabah  was  used  at  first  for  sensuous  love  and  there¬ 
fore  was  not  employed  for  God  so  often  as  the  more  spiritual 
hesed ,  which  denotes  kind  and  loyal  affection.4  However, 
Hosea  used  this  term  for  his  own  love  for  his  faithless  wife,  and 
did  not  hesitate  to  apply  it  also  to  God’s  love  for  His  faithless 
people,  which  he  terms  “a  love  of  free  will.”  5  His  example 
is  followed  by  Jeremiah,  most  tender  of  the  prophets,  who  gave 
the  classic  expression  to  the  everlasting  love  of  God  for  Israel, 
His  beloved  son.6  This  divine  love,  spiritually  understood, 
forms  the  chief  topic  of  the  Deuteronomic  addresses.7  In  this 
book  God’s  love  appears  as  that  of  a  father  for  his  son,  who 
lavishes  gifts  upon  him,  but  also  chastises  him  for  his  own 

1  B.  M.  85  a;  Yer.  Kil.  IX,  4. 

2  Tos.  B.  K.  IX,  30;  Sifre,  Deut.  96. 

3  Sifre,  Deut.  §  49 ;  Shab.  133  b ;  comp.  Philo  :  Be  Humanitate. 

4  See  Concordance  to  ahabah  and  hesed.  Note  especially  Hos.  VI,  6. 

3  Hos.  Ill,  1 ;  XI,  1,  4 ;  XIV,  5. 

6  Jer.  XXXI,  2,  19. 


7  Deut.  VII,  8;  X,  15. 


130 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


good.1  The  mind  opened  more  and  more  to  regard  the  trials 
sent  by  God  as  means  of  ennobling  the  character,2  and  the 
men  of  the  Talmudic  period  often  speak  of  the  afflictions  of 
the  saints  as  “  visitations  of  the  divine  love.”  3 

6.  The  sufferings  of  Israel  in  particular  were  taken  to  be 
trials  of  the  divine  love.4  God’s  love  for  Israel,  “His  first¬ 
born  son,”5  is  not  partial,  but  from  the  outset  aims  to  train 
him  for  his  world  mission.  The  Song  of  Moses  speaks  of  the 
love  of  the  Father  for  His  son  “whom  He  found  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness”  ;  6  and  this  is  requited  by  the  bridal  love  of  Israel  with 
which  the  people  “went  after  God  in  the  wilderness.”  7  It  is 
this  love  of  God,  according  to  Akiba’s  interpretation  of  the 
Song  of  Songs,  which  “all  the  waters  could  not  quench,”  “a 
love  as  strong  as  death.”  8  This  love  raised  up  a  nation  of 
martyrs  without  parallel  in  history,  although  the  followers  of 
the  so-called  Religion  of  Love  fail  to  give  it  the  credit  it 
deserves  and  seem  to  regard  it  as  a  kind  of  hatred  for  the  rest 
of  mankind.9  Whenever  the  paternal  love  of  God  is  truly 
felt  and  understood  it  must  include  all  classes  and  all  souls  of 
men  who  enter  into  the  relation  of  children  to  God.  Wherever 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  special  love  for  Israel,  it  is  based  upon 
the  love  with  which  the  chosen  people  cling  to  the  Torah, 
the  word  of  God,  upon  the  devotion  with  which  they  surrender 
their  lives  in  His  cause.10 

7.  Still,  Judaism  does  not  proclaim  love,  absolute  and  un¬ 
restricted,  as  the  divine  principle  of  life.  That  is  left  to  the 
Church,  whose  history  almost  to  this  day  records  ever  so  many 
acts  of  lovelessness.  Love  is  unworthy  of  God,  unless  it  is 
guided  by  justice.  Love  of  good  must  be  accompanied  by 

1  Deut.  VIII,  5 ;  see  Sifre,  Deut.  32.  2  Prov.  Ill,  13. 

3  Ber.  5  a ;  Sifre,  1.  c. ;  Mek.  Yithro  10.  4  See  Mek.  and  Sifre,  1.  c. 

B  Ex.  IV,  22.  e  Deut.  XXXII,  6,  10  f.  7  Jer.  II,  2. 

8  Song  of  Songs,  R.  to  III,  7.  Comp.  Davidson,  1.  c.,  235-287. 

9  See  Schreiner,  1.  c.,  103-112  ;  Perles :  Bousset,  58  f. 

10  Pesik,  16-17 ;  Mek.  Yithro  6,  at  end. 


GOD’S  LOVE  AND  COMPASSION 


I3i 

hate  of  evil,  or  else  it  lacks  the  educative  power  which  alone 
makes  it  beneficial  to  man. 

God’s  love  manifests  itself  in  human  life  as  an  educative 
power.  R.  Akiba  says  that  it  extends  to  all  created  in  God’s 
image,  although  the  knowledge  of  it  was  vouchsafed  to  Israel 
alone.1  This  universal  love  of  God  is  a  doctrine  of  the  apoc¬ 
ryphal  literature  as  well.  “  Thou  hast  mercy  upon  all  ...  for 
Thou  lovest  all  things  that  are,  and  hatest  nothing  which 
Thou  hast  made.  .  .  .  But  Thou  sparest  all,  for  they  are  Thine, 
O  Lord,  Lover  of  souls,”  says  the  Book  of  Wisdom ; 2  and  when 
Ezra  the  Seer  laments  the  calamity  that  has  befallen  the  people, 
God  replies,  “Thinkest  thou  that  thou  lovest  My  creatures 
more  than  I?”  3 

8.  Among  the  mystics  divine  love  was  declared  to  be  the 
highest  creative  principle.  They  referred  the  words  of  the 
Song  of  Songs,  —  “The  midst  thereof  is  paved  with  love,”4 
to  the  innermost  palace  of  heaven,  where  stands  the  throne  of 
God.5  Among  the  philosophers  Crescas  considered  love  the 
active  cosmic  principle  rather  than  intellect,  the  principle  of 
Aristotle,  because  it  is  love  which  is  the  impulse  for  creation.6 
This  conception  of  divine  love  received  a  peculiarly  mystic 
color  from  Juda  Abravanel,  a  neo-Platonist  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  known  as  Leo  Hebraeus.  He  says:  “God’s  love 
must  needs  unfold  His  perfection  and  beauty,  and  reveal  itself 
in  His  creatures,  and  love  for  these  creatures  must  again  elevate 
an  imperfect  world  to  His  own  perfection.  Thus  is  engendered 
in  man  that  yearning  for  love  with  which  he  endeavors  to 
emulate  the  divine  perfection.”  7  Both  Crescas  and  Leo 
Hebraeus  thus  gave  the  keynote  for  Spinoza’s  “Intellectual 
love”  as  the  cosmic  principle,8  and  this  has  been  echoed  even 

1  Aboth  III,  14.  2  XI,  23-26.  3 IV  Esdra  VIII,  47- 

4  III,  10.  6  Zohar  I,  44  b ;  II,  97  a. 

6  See  Or  Adonai,  I,  3,  5,  and  Joel :  Crescas  36-37. 

7  Dialoghi  di  A  more;  see  Zimmels :  Leo  Hebraeus ,  1886. 

8  Ethics  V,  proposition  XXXV. 


1 32 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


in  such  works  as  Schiller’s  dithyrambs  on  “Love  and  Friend¬ 
ship”  in  his  “Philosophic  Letters.”1  StilHthis  Lneo-Pla  tonic 
view  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  theological  conception 
of  love.  In  Judaism  God  is  conceived  as  a  loving  Father, 
who  purposes  to  lead  man  to  happiness  and  salvation.  :  In  other 
words,  the  divine  love  is  an  essentially  moral  attribute  of  God, 
and  not  a  metaphysical  one. 

9.  If  we  wish  to  speak  of  a  power  that  permeates  the  cosmos 
and  turns  the  wheel  of  life,  it  is  far  more  correct  to  speak  of 
God’s  creative  goodness.2  According  to  Scripture,  each  day’s 
creation  bears  the  divine  approval :  “It  is  good.” 3  Even  the 
evil  which  man  experiences  serves  a  higher  purpose,  and  that 
purpose  makes  for  the  good.  Misfortune  and  death,  sorrow 
and  sin,  in  the  great  economy  of  life  are  all  turned  into  final 
good.  Accordingly,  Judaism  recognizes  this  divine  goodness 
not  only  in  every  enjoyment  of  nature’s  gifts  and  the  favors  of 
fortune,  but  also  in  sad  and  trying  experiences,  and  for  all 
of  these  it  provides  special  formulas  of  benediction.4  The 
same  divine  goodness  sends  joy  and  grief,  even  though  short¬ 
sighted  man  fails  to  see  the  majestic  Sun  of  life  which  shines 
in  unabated  splendor  above  the  clouds.  Judaism  was  optimis¬ 
tic  through  all  its  experiences  just  because  of  this  implicit 
faith  in  God’s  goodness.  Such  faith  transforms  each  woe  into 
a  higher  welfare,  each  curse  into  actual  blessing ;  it  leads  men 
and  nations  from  oppression  to  ever  greater  freedom,  from 
darkness  to  ever  brighter  light,  and  from  error  to  ever  higher 
truth  and  righteousness.  Divine  love  may  have  pity  upon 
human  weakness,  but  it  is  divine  goodness  that  inspires  and 
quickens  human  energy.  After  all,  love  cannot  be  the  domi¬ 
nant  principle  of  life.  Man  cannot  love  all  the  time,  nor  can  he 
love  all  the  world ;  his  sense  of  justice  demands  that  he  hate 

1  “The  Theosophy  of  Julius”  :  “God.” 

2  Middath  tobah. 

s  Gen.  I,  4,  10,  12,  18,  21,  23,  31. 

4  Gen.  R.  IX,  5,  9;  Ber.  60  a;  Yer.  Ber.  IX,  13  c-14  b;  Taan.  21  a. 


GOD’S  LOVE  AND  COMPASSION 


133 


wickedness  and  falsehood.  We  must  apply  the  same  criterion 
to  God.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  man  can  and  should  do  good 
and  be  good  continually  and  to  all  men,  even  to  the  most  un¬ 
worthy.  Therefore  God  becomes  the  pattern  and  ideal  of  an 
all-encompassing  goodness,  which  is  never  exhausted  and 
never  reaches  an  end. 


CHAPTER  XXI 


God’s  Truth  and  Faithfulness 

1.  In  the  Hebrew  language  truth  and  faithfulness  are  both 
derived  from  the  same  root;  aman ,  “firmness,”  is  the  root 
idea  of  emeth,  “truth,”  and  emunah ,  “faithfulness.”  Man 
feels  insecurity  and  uncertainty  among  the  varying  impressions 
and  emotions  which  affect  his  will ;  therefore  he  turns  to  the 
immovable  Rock  of  life,  calls  on  Him  as  the  Guardian  and 
Witness  of  truth,  and  feels  confident  that  He  will  vindicate 
every  promise  made  in  His  sight.  He  is  the  God  by  whom 
men  swear  —  Elohe  amen;1  nay,  who  swears  by  Himself, 
saying,  “As  true  as  that  I  live.”2  He  is  the  supreme  Power  of 
life,  “the  God  of  faithfulness,  in  whom  there  is  no  iniquity.”3 
The  heavens  testify  to  His  faithfulness ;  He  is  the  trustworthy 
God,  whose  essence  is  truth.4 

2.  Here,  too,  as  with  other  attributes,  the  development  of 
the  idea  may  be  traced  step  by  step.  At  first  it  refers  to  the 
God  of  the  covenant  with  Israel,  who  made  a  covenant  with 
the  fathers  and  keeps  it  with  the  thousandth  generation  of  their 
descendants.  He  shows  His  mercy  to  those  who  love  Him  and 
keep  His  commandments.  The  idea  of  God’s  faithfulness  to 
His  covenant  is  thus  extended  gradually  from  the  people  to  the 
cosmos,  and  the  heavens  are  called  upon  to  witness  to  the  faith¬ 
fulness  of  God  throughout  the  realm  of  life.  Thus  in  both  the 

1  Isa.  LXV,  16.  2  Deut.  XXXII,  40.  3  Deut.  XXXII,  4. 

4  Num.  XXIII,  19 ;  Isa.  XL,  8 ;  Jer.  X,  10 ;  Ps.  XXXI,  6 ;  comp.  Dill- 
mann,  1.  c.  269  f. 


134 


GOD’S  TRUTH  AND  FAITHFULNESS 


135 

Psalms  and  the  liturgy  God  is  praised  as  the  One  who  is  faith¬ 
ful  in  His  word  as  in  His  work.1 

3.  From  this  conception  of  faithfulness  arose  two  other 
ideas  which  exerted  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  whole 
spiritual  and  intellectual  life  of  the  Jew.  The  God  of  faithful¬ 
ness  created  a  people  of  faithfulness  as  His  own,  and  Israel’s 
God  of  truth  awakened  in  the  nation  a  passion  for  truth  un¬ 
rivaled  by  any  other  religious  or  philosophical  system.  Like 
a  silver  stream  running  through  a  valley,  the  conviction  runs 
through  the  sacred  writings  and  the  liturgy  that  the  promise 
made  of  yore  to  the  fathers  will  be  fulfilled  to  the  children.  As 
each  past  deliverance  from  distress  was  considered  a  verifica¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  faithfulness,  so  each  hope  for  the  future  was 
based  upon  the  same  attribute.  “He  keepeth  His  faith  also 
to  those  who  sleep  in  the  dust.”  These  words  of  the  second 
of  the  Eighteen  Benedictions  clearly  indicate  that  even  the 
belief  in  the  hereafter  rested  upon  the  same  fundamental 
belief. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  same  conception  formed  the  keynote 
of  the  idea  of  the  divine  truthfulness.  The  primitive  age  knew 
nothing  of  the  laws  of  nature  with  which  we  have  become 
familiar  through  modern  science.  But  the  pious  soul  trusts 
the  God  of  faithfulness,  certain  that  He  who  has  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth  is  true  to  His  own  word,  and  will  not 
allow  them  to  sink  back  into  chaos.  One  witness  to  this  is  the 
rainbow,  which  He  has  set  up  in  the  sky  as  a  sign  of  His 
covenant.2  The  sea  and  the  stars  also  have  a  boundary 
assigned  to  them  which  they  cannot  transgress.3  Thus  to  the 
unsophisticated  religious  soul,  with  no  knowledge  of  natural 
science,  the  world  is  carried  by  God’s  “everlasting  arms”4  and 

1  Ps.  XXXVI,  6;  LXXXIX,  3,  38;  CXLVI,  6;  Benediction  at  seeing  the 
rainbow,  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  p.  291. 

2  Gen.  IX,  11.  3  Ps>  CIV,  9 ;  Job  XXXVIII,  11 ;  Jer.  XXXI,  34. 

4  Deut.  XXXIII,  27. 


136  JEWISH  THEOLOGY 

His  faithfulness  becomes  token  and  pledge  of  the  immutability 
of  His  will. 

4.  At  this  point  the  intellect  grasps  an  idea  of  intrinsic  and 
indestructible  truth,  which  has  its  beginning  and  its  end  in 
God,  the  Only  One.  “The  gods  of  the  nations  are  all  vanity 
and  deceit,  the  work  of  men ;  Israel’s  God  is  the  God  of  truth, 
the  living  God  and  everlasting  King.”  1  With  this  cry  has 
Judaism  challenged  the  nations  of  the  world  since  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  exile.  Its  own  adherents  it  charged  to  ponder  upon  the 
problems  of  life  and  the  nature  of  God,  until  He  would  appear 
before  them  as  the  very  essence  of  truth,  and  all  heathenish 
survivals  would  vanish  as  mist.  God  is  truth,  and  He  desires 
naught  but  truth,  therefore  hypocrisy  is  loathsome  to  him, 
even  in  the  service  of  religion.  With  this  underlying  thought 
Job,  the  bold  but  honest  doubter,  stands  above  his  friends  with 
their  affected  piety.  God  is  truth  —  this  confession  of  faith, 
recited  each  morning  and  evening  by  the  Jew,  gave  his  mind 
the  power  to  soar  into  the  highest  realms  of  thought,  and  in¬ 
spired  his  soul  to  offer  life  and  all  it  holds  for  his  faith.  “  God 
is  the  everlasting  truth,  the  unchangeable  Being  who  ever 
remains  the  same  amid  the  fluctuations  and  changes  of  all 
other  things.”  This  is  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which 
Joseph  Ibn  Zaddik  and  Abraham  Ibn  Daud,  the  predecessors 
of  Maimonides,  reared  their  entire  philosophical  systems, 
which  were  Aristotelian  and  yet  thoroughly  Jewish.2 

Mystic  lore,  always  so  fond  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet 
and  their  hidden  meanings,  noted  that  the  letters  of  Emeth 
—  aieph ,  mem  and  tav  —  are  the  first,  the  middle,  and  the  last 
letters  of  the  alphabet,  and  therefore  concluded  that  God  made 

1  Jer.  X,  10,  15. 

2  Emuna  Rama  54.  See  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  333  f.,  352  f. ;  comp.  Guttmann  : 
Religions philosophic  des  Ibn  Daud,  136  f. ;  Albo  II,  27,  at  the  end ;  Maimonides  : 
Yesode  ha  Torah,  I,  3-4;  Hillel  of  Verona  refers  even  to  Aristotle’s  “Meta¬ 
physics.”  See  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  334,  note;  Neumark,  1.  c.,  and  Husik., 
1.  c.  passim. 


GOD’S  TRUTH  AND  FAITHFULNESS 


137 


truth  the  beginning,  the  center,  and  the  end  of  the  world.1 
Josephus  also,  no  doubt  in  accordance  with  the  same  tradition, 
declares  that  God  is  “the  beginning,  the  center,  and  the  end  of 
all  things. ” 2  A  corresponding  rabbinical  saying  is:  “Truth 
is  the  seal  of  God.” 3 

1  See  Yer.  Sanh.  I,  18  a. 

2  Contra  Apionem,  II,  22 ;  compare  J.  E.,  art.  “Alpha  and  Omega.” 

8  See  Yer.  Sanh.  I,  18  a. 


CHAPTER  XXII 


God’s  Knowledge  and  Wisdom 

i.  The  attempt  to  enumerate  the  attributes  of  God  recalls 
the  story  related  in  the  Talmud  1  of  a  disciple  who  stepped  up 
to  the  reader’s  desk  to  offer  prayer,  and  began  to  address  the 
Deity  with  an  endless  list  of  attributes.  When  his  vocabulary 
was  almost  exhausted,  Rabbi  Haninah  interrupted  him  with 
the  question,  “Hast  thou  now  really  finished  telling  the  praise 
of  God?”  Mortal  man  can  never  know  what  God  really  is. 
As  the  poet-philosopher  says:  “Could  I  ever  know  Him,  I 
would  be  He.”  2  But  we  want  to  ascertain  what  God  is  to  us , 
and  for  this  very  reason  we  cannot  rest  with  the  negative 
attitude  of  Maimonides,  who  relies  on  the  Psalmist’s  verse, 
“Silence  is  praise  to  Thee.”  3  We  must  obtain  as  clear  a  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Deity  as  we  possibly  can  with  our  limited  powers. 

To  the  divine  attributes  already  mentioned  we  must  add 
another  which  in  a  sense  is  the  focus  of  them  all.  This  is  the 
knowledge  and  wisdom  of  God,  the  omniscience  which  renders 
Him  all-knowing  and  all-wise.  Through  this  all  the  others 
come  into  self-consciousness.  We  ascribe  wisdom  to  the  man 
who  sets  right  aims  for  his  actions  and  knows  the  means  by 
which  to  attain  them,  that  is,  who  can  control  his  power  and 
knowledge  by  his  will  and  bend  them  to  his  purpose.  In  the 
same  manner  we  think  of  wisdom  in  view  of  the  marvelous 
order,  design,  and  unity  which  we  see  in  the  natural  and  the 
moral  world.  But  this  wisdom  must  be  all-encompassing, 
comprising  time  and  eternity,  directing  all  the  forces  and  beings 

1  Ber.  33  b.  2  Jedayah  ha  Penini.  3  Ps.  LXV,  2. 

138 


GOD’S  KNOWLEDGE  AND  WISDOM 


139 


of  the  world  toward  the  goal  of  ideal  perfection.1  It  makes  no 
difference  where  we  find  this  lesson.  The  Book  of  Proverbs 
singles  out  the  tiny  ant  as  an  example  of  wondrous  fore¬ 
thought  ; 2  the  author  of  Job  dwells  on  the  working  together  of 
the  powers  of  earth  and  heaven  to  maintain  the  cosmic  life  ;3 
modern  science,  with  its  deeper  insight  into  nature,  enables  us 
to  follow  the  interaction  of  the  primal  chemical  and  organic 
forces,  and  to  follow  the  course  of  evolution  from  star-dust  and 
cell  to  the  structure  of  the  human  eye  or  the  thought-centers 
of  the  brain.  But  in  all  these  alike  our  conclusion  must  be 
that  of  the  Psalmist :  “O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  Thy  works, 
in  wisdom  hast  Thou  made  them  all.”  4 

2.  Accordingly,  if  we  are  to  speak  in  human  terms,  we 
may  consider  God’s  wisdom  the  element  which  determines  His 
various  motive-powers,  —  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and 
goodness,  —  to  tend  toward  the  realizaton  of  His  cosmic  plan. 
Or  we  may  call  it  the  active  intellect  with  which  God  works 
as  Creator,  Ordainer,  and  Ruler  of  the  universe.  The  Biblical 
account  of  creation  presupposes  this  wisdom,  as  it  portrays  a 
logical  process,  working  after  a  definite  plan,  proceeding  from 
simpler  to  more  complex  forms  and  culminating  in  man. 
Biblical  history  likewise  is  based  upon  the  principle  of  a  di¬ 
vinely  prearranged  plan,  which  is  especially  striking  in  such 
stories  as  that  of  Joseph.5 

3.  At  first  the  divine  wisdom  was  supposed  to  rest  in  part  on 
specially  gifted  persons,  such  as  Joseph,  Solomon,  and  Bezalel. 
As  Scripture  has  it,  “The  Lord  giveth  wisdom,  out  of  His 
mouth  cometh  knowledge  and  understanding.”  6  Later  the 
obscure  destiny  of  the  nation  appears  as  the  design  of  an  all¬ 
wise  Ruler  to  the  great  prophets  and  especially  to  Isaiah,  the 

1  Jer.  X,  12  ;  Amos  IV,  13  ;  Job  XXXVIII-XXXIX.  2  Prov.  VI,  6. 

3  Job  XXXVIII-XXXIX.  4  Ps.  CIV,  24. 

6  Gen.  L.  20 ;  see  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  280 ;  Strauss,  1.  c.,  575  f. ;  Hamburger,  1.  c., 
art.  “Weisheit  Gottes”;  A.  B.  Davidson,  1.  c.,  180-182. 

6  Gen.  XLI,  38;  I  Kings  III,  12 ;  Ex.  XXXV,  31 ;  Prov.  II,  6. 


140 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


high-soaring  eagle  among  the  seers  of  Israel.1  With  the  progres¬ 
sive  expansion  of  the  world  before  them,  the  seers  and  sages  saw 
a  sublime  purpose  in  the  history  of  the  nations,  and  felt  more 
and  more  the  supreme  place  of  the  divine  wisdom  as  a  manifes¬ 
tation  of  His  greatness.  Thus  the  great  seer  of  the  Exile  never 
tires  of  illumining  the  world- wide  plan  of  the  divine  wisdom.2 

4.  A  new  development  ensued  under  Babylonian  and 
Persian  influence  at  the  time  when  the  monotheism  of  Israel 
became  definitely  universal.  The  divine  wisdom,  creative 
and  world-sustaining,  became  the  highest  of  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes  and  was  partially  hypostatized  as  an  independent  cosmic 
power.  In  the  twenty-eighth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Job  wis¬ 
dom  is  depicted  as  a  magic  being,  far  remote  from  all  living 
beings  of  earth,  beyond  the  reach  of  the  creatures  of  the  lowest 
abyss,  who  aided  the  Creator  with  counsel  and  knowledge  in 
measuring  and  weighing  the  foundations  of  the  world.  The 
description  seems  to  be  based  upon  an  ancient  Babylonian 
conception  —  which  has  parallels  elsewhere  —  of  a  divine 
Sybil  dwelling  beneath  the  ocean  in  “the  house  of  wdsdom.”  3 
Here,  however,  the  mythological  conception  is  transformed 
into  a  symbolic  figure.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  Proverbs 
the  description  of  divine  wisdom  is  more  in  accordance  with 
Jewish  monotheism ;  wisdom  is  “the  first  of  God’s  creatures, ” 
“a  master- workman”  who  assisted  Him  in  founding  heaven 
and  earth,  a  helpmate  and  playmate  of  God,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  instructor  of  men  and  counselor  of  princes,  inviting  all 
to  share  her  precious  gifts.  This  conception  is  found  also  in 
the  apocryphal  literature,  —  in  Ben  Sira,  the  book  of  Enoch, 
the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  and  the  Hellenistic  Book  of  Wisdom.4 

1  Isa.  XXV,  I ;  XXVIII,  29.  2  Isa.  XL-LV. 

3  Prov.  IX,  1.  Comp.  A.  Jeremias:  D.  A.  Test.  i.  L.  d.  i.  alt.  Orients,  5, 
80,  336,  367. 

4  Ben  Sira  XXIV,  3-6,  14,  21 ;  Enoch  XLII,  1-2  ;  Slavonic  Enoch  XXX,  8 ; 
Baruch  III,  9 -IV,  4;  comp.  Bousset,  1.  c.,  337  f. ;  J.  E.,  art.  Wisdom; 
Bentwich  :  Philo,  pp.  141-147. 


GOD’S  KNOWLEDGE  AND  WISDOM 


141 

From  this  period  two  different  currents  of  thought  appeared. 
The  one  represented  wisdom  as  an  independent  being  distinct 
from  God,  and  this  finally  became  merged,  under  Platonic  influ¬ 
ence,  into  the  views  of  neo-Platonism,  Gnosticism,  and  the 
Christian  dogma.  The  other  identified  the  divine  wisdom  with 
the  Torah,  and  therefore  it  is  the  Torah  which  served  God 
as  counselor  and  mediator  at  the  Creation  and  continues  as 
counselor  in  the  management  of  the  world.  This  view  led 
back  to  strict  monotheism,  so  that  the  cosmology  of  the  rabbis 
spoke  alternately  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  the  Torah  as  the 
instruments  of  God  at  Creation.1 

5.  The  Jewish  philosophers  of  the  Middle  Ages,  such  as 
Saadia,  Gabirol,  and  JehudahaLevi,  followed  the  Mohammedan 
theologians  in  enumerating  God’s  wisdom  among  the  attributes 
constituting  His  essence,  together  with  His  omnipotence,  His 
will,  and  His  creative  energy.  But  they  would  not  take  wis¬ 
dom  or  any  other  attribute  as  a  separate  being,  with  an  exist¬ 
ence  outside  of  God,  which  would  either  condition  Him  or 
admit  a  division  of  His  nature.2  “  God  himself  is  wisdom,”  says 
Jehuda  ha  Levi,  referring  to  the  words  of  Job  :  “He  is  wise  in 
heart.”  3  And  Ibn  Gabirol  sings  in  his  “Crown  of  Royalty”  : 

“Thou  art  wise,  and  the  wisdom  of  Thy  fount  of  life  floweth  from  Thee ; 
And  compared  with  Thy  wisdom  man  is  void  of  understanding ; 

Thou  art  wise,  before  anything  began  its  existence ; 

And  wisdom  has  from  times  of  yore  been  Thy  fostered  child ; 

Thou  art  wise,  and  out  of  Thy  wisdom  didst  Thou  create  the  world, 

Life  the  artificer  that  fashioneth  whatsoever  delighteth  him.”  4 

1  Targ.  Yer.  to  Gen.  1, 1.  Gen.  R.  I.  2,  5.  See  Schechter :  Aspects ,  12  7-13 7. 

2  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  16,  107,  113,  163,  325,  418. 

3  Job  IX,  4;  Cuzari,  II,  2.  4  Sachs,  cl,  6,  227. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


God’s  Condescension 

i.  An  attribute  of  great  importance  for  the  theological 
conception  of  God,  one  upon  which  both  Biblical  and  rabbin¬ 
ical  literature  laid  especial  stress,  is  His  condescension  and 
humility.  The  Psalmist  says1:  “Thy  condescension  hath 
made  me  great,”  which  is  interpreted  in  the  Midrash  that 
the  Deity  stoops  to  man  in  order  to  lift  him  up  to  Himself. 
A  familiar  saying  of  R.  Johanan  is2:  “Wherever  Scripture 
speaks  of  the  greatness  of  God,  there  mention  is  made  also 
of  His  condescension.  So  when  the  prophet  begins,  ‘Thus 
saith  the  High  and  Lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity, 
whose  name  is  Holy :  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place/ 
he  adds  the  words,  ‘With  him  also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and 
humble  spirit.’ 3  Or  when  the  Deuteronomist  says:  ‘For 
the  Lord  your  God,  the  great  God,  the  mighty  and  the  awful/ 
he  concludes,  ‘He  doth  execute  justice  for  the  fatherless  and 
widow,  and  loveth  the  stranger.’ 4  And  again  the  Psalmist : 
‘Extol  Him  that  rideth  upon  the  skies,  whose  name  is  the  Lord, 
a  Father  of  the  fatherless  and  a  Judge  of  the  widows.’  ”  5  “  Do 

you  deem  it  unworthy  of  God  that  He  should  care  for  the 
smallest  and  most  insignificant  person  or  thing  in  the  world’s 
household?”  asks  Mendelssohn  in  his  Morgenstunden.  “It 
certainly  does  not  detract  from  the  dignity  of  a  king  to  be 
seen  fondling  his  child  as  a  loving  father,”  and  he  quotes 

1  Ps.  XVIII,  36.  2  Meg.  35  a.  8  Isa.  LVII,  15. 

4  Deut.  X,  17-18.  8  ps.  LX VIII,  5-6. 


142 


GOD’S  CONDESCENSION 


I43 


the  verse  of  the  Psalm,  “Who  is  like  unto  the  Lord  our  God, 
that  is  enthroned  on  high,  that  looketh  down  low  upon  heaven 
and  upon  the  earth.”  1 

2.  This  truth  has  a  religious  depth  which  no  philosophy 
can  set  forth.  Only  the  God  of  Revelation  is  near  to  man 
in  his  frailty  and  need,  ready  to  hear  his  sighs,  answer  his 
supplication,  count  his  tears,  and  relieve  his  wants  when  his 
own  power  fails.  The  philosopher  must  reject  as  futile  every 
attempt  to  bring  the  incomprehensible  essence  of  the  Deity 
within  the  compass  of  the  human  understanding.  The  re¬ 
ligious  consciousness,  however,  demands  that  we  accentuate 
precisely  those  attributes  of  God  which  bring  Him  nearest 
to  us.  If  reason  alone  would  have  the  decisive  voice  in  this 
problem,  every  manifestation  of  God  to  man  and  every  reach¬ 
ing  out  of  the  soul  to  Him  in  prayer  would  be  idle  fancy  and 
self-deceit.  It  is  true  that  the  Biblical  conception  was  simple 
and  child-like  enough,  representing  God  as  descending  from 
the  heavens  to  the  earth.  Still  Judaism  does  not  accept 
the  cold  and  distant  attitude  of  the  philosopher;  it  teaches 
that  God  as  a  spiritual  power  does  condescend  to  man,  in 
order  that  man  may  realize  his  kinship  with  the  Most  High 
and  rise  ever  nearer  to  his  Creator.  The  earth  whereon 
man  dwells  and  the  human  heart  with  its  longing  for 
heaven,  are  not  bereft  of  God.  Wherever  man  seeks  Him, 
there  He  is. 

3.  Rabbinical  Judaism  is  very  far  from  the  attitude  assigned 
to  it  by  Christian  theologians,2  of  reducing  the  Deity  to  an 
empty  transcendental  abstraction  and  loosening  the  bond 
which  ties  the  soul  to  its  Maker.  On  the  contrary,  it  main¬ 
tains  these  very  relations  with  a  firmness  which  betokens 
its  soundness  and  its  profound  psychological  truth.  In  this 
spirit  a  Talmudic  master  interprets  the  Deuteronomic  verse : 
“For  what  great  nation  is  there  that  hath  God  so  nigh  unto 

1  Ps.  CXIII,  5-6.  2  Weber,  1.  c.,  154. 


144 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


them,  as  the  Lord  our  God  is  whensoever  we  call  upon  Him  ?  ”  1 
saying  that  “each  will  realize  the  nearness  of  God  according 
to  his  own  intellectual  and  emotional  disposition,  and  thus 
enter  into  communion  with  Him.”  According  to  another 
Haggadist  the  verse  of  the  Psalm,  “The  voice  of  the  Lord 
resoundeth  with  power,”  2  teaches  how  God  reveals  Himself, 
not  with  His  own  overwhelming  might,  but  according  to  each 
man’s  individual  power  and  capacity.  The  rabbis  even  make 
bold  to  assert  that  whenever  Israel  suffers,  God  suffers  with 
him  ;  as  it  is  written,  “I  will  be  with  him  in  trouble.”  3 

4.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  the  names  which  we  apply  to 
God  in  speech  or  in  prayer,  even  the  most  sublime  and  holy 
ones,  are  derived  from  our  own  sensory  experience  and  cannot 
be  taken  literally.  They  are  used  only  as  vehicles  to  bring 
home  to  us  the  idea  that  God’s  nearness  is  our  highest  good. 
Even  the  material  world,  which  is  perceptible  to  our  senses, 
must  undergo  a  certain  inner  transformation  before  it  can  be 
termed  science  or  philosophy,  and  becomes  the  possession  of 
the  mind.  It  requires  still  further  exertions  of  the  imagina¬ 
tion  to  bring  within  our  grasp  the  world  of  the  spirit,  and  above 
all  the  loftiest  of  all  conceptions,  the  very  being  of  God. 
Yet  it  is  just  this  Being  of  all  Beings  who  draws  us  irresistibly 
toward  Himself,  whose  nearness  we  perceive  in  the  very 
depths  of  our  intellectual  and  emotional  life.  Our  “soul 
thirsteth  after  God,  the  living  God,”  and  behold,  He  is  nigh, 
He  takes  possession  of  us,  and  we  call  Him  our  God. 

5.  The  Haggadists  expressed  this  intimate  relation  of  God 
to  man,  and  specifically  to  Israel,  by  bold  and  often  naive 
metaphors.  They  ascribe  to  God  special  moments  for  wrath 
and  for  prayer,  a  secret  chamber  where  he  weeps  over  the 

1  Deut.  IV,  7;  Yer.  Ber.  IX,  19  a,  where  the  plural,  Kerobim,  suggests  the 
idea,  “all  kinds  of  nearness.” 

2  Ps.  XXIX,  4;  Tanh.  Yithro,  ed.  Buber,  17. 

3  Ps.  XCI,  15;  Isa.  LXIII,  9;  Sifre  Num.  84. 


GOD’S  CONDESCENSION 


145 


distress  of  Israel,  a  prayer-mantle  (tallith)  and  phylacteries 
which  He  wears  like  any  of  the  leaders  of  the  community, 
and  even  lustrations  which  He  practices  exactly  like  mortals.1 
But  such  fanciful  and  extravagant  conceptions  were  never 
taken  seriously  by  the  rabbis,  and  only  partisan  and  prejudiced 
writers,  entirely  lacking  in  a  sense  of  humor,  could  point 
to  such  passages  to  prove  that  a  theology  of  the  Synagogue 
carried  out  a  “  Judaization  of  God.”  2 

1  Ber.  6  a;  7  a;  R.  haSh.  17  b;  Hag.  5  b;  Sanh.  39  a.  Comp.  Schechter, 
Aspects,  p.  21-50. 

2  Weber,  1.  c.,  157-160. 


L 


C.  GOD  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  WORLD 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

The  World  and  its  Master 

i.  In  using  the  term  world  or  universe  we  include  the 
totality  of  all  beings  at  once,  and  this  suggests  a  stage  of 
knowledge  where  polytheism  is  practically  overcome.  Among 
the  Greeks,  Pythagoras  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  to  per¬ 
ceive  “a  beautiful  order  of  things”  in  the  world,  and  therefore 
to  call  it  cosmos }  Primitive  man  saw  in  the  world  innumer¬ 
able  forces  continually  struggling  with  each  other  for  suprem¬ 
acy.  Without  an  ordering  mind  no  order,  as  we  conceive 
it,  can  exist.  The  old  Babylonian  conception  prevalent 
throughout  antiquity  divided  the  world  into  three  realms,  the 
celestial,  terrestrial,  and  the  nether  world,  each  of  which  had 
its  own  type  of  inhabitants  and  its  own  ruling  divinities.  Yet 
these  various  divine  powers  were  at  war  with  each  other,  and 
ultimately  they,  too,  must  submit  to  a  blind  fate  which  men 
and  gods  alike  could  read  in  the  stars  or  other  natural  phe¬ 
nomena. 

With  the  first  words  of  the  Bible,  “In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,”  Judaism  declared 
the  world  to  be  a  unity  and  God  its  Creator  and  Master. 
Heathenism  had  always  beheld  in  the  world  certain  blind 
forces  of  nature,  working  without  plan  or  purpose  and  devoid 

1  Plutarch:  “De  placitis  philosophiae,”  II,  i ;  comp,  for  the  entire  chapter 
Dillmann,  1.  c.,  284-295;  Smend :  1.  c.,  454  f. ;  H.  Steinthal :  “Die  Idee  der 
Schopfung”  in  J.  B.  z.  Jued.  Gesch.  u.  Lit.,  II,  39-44. 

146 


THE  WORLD  AND  ITS  MASTER 


147 


of  any  moral  aims.  But  Judaism  sees  in  the  world  the  work 
of  a  supreme  Intellect  who  fashioned  it  according  to  His  will, 
and  who  rules  in  freedom,  wisdom,  and  goodness.  “He 
spoke,  and  it  was;  He  commanded,  and  it  stood.”  1  Nature 
exists  only  by  the  will  of  God ;  His  creative  fiat  called  it  into 
existence,  and  it  ceases  to  be  as  soon  as  it  has  fulfilled  His 
plan. 

2.  That  which  the  scientist  terms  nature  —  the  cosmic 
life  in  its  eternal  process  of  growth  and  reproduction  —  is 
declared  by  Judaism  to  be  God’s  creation.  Ancient  heathen 
conceptions  deified  nature,  indeed,  but  they  knew  only  a 
cosmogony,  that  is,  a  process  of  birth  and  growth  of  the  world. 
In  this  the  gods  participate  with  all  other  beings,  to  sink 
back  again  at  the  close  of  the  drama  into  fiery  chaos,  —  the 
so-called  “twilight  of  the  gods.”  Here  the  deity  constitutes 
a  part  of  the  world,  or  the  world  a  part  of  the  deity,  and 
philosophic  speculation  can  at  best  blend  the  two  into  a 
pantheistic  system  which  has  no  place  for  a  self-conscious, 
creative  mind  and  will.  In  fact,  the  universe  appears  as  an 
ever  growing  and  unfolding  deity,  and  the  deity  as  an  ever 
growing  and  unfolding  universe.  Modern  science  more 
properly  assumes  a  self-imposed  limitation ;  it  searches  for 
the  laws  underlying  the  action  and  interaction  of  natural 
forces  and  elements,  thus  to  explain  in  a  mechanistic  way 
the  origin  and  development  of  all  things,  but  it  leaves  entirely 
outside  of  its  domain  the  whole  question  of  a  first  cause  and  a 
supreme  creative  mind.  It  certainly  can  pass  no  opinion  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  entire  work  of  creation  was  accomplished 
by  the  free  act  of  a  Creator.  Revelation  alone  can  speak  with 
unfaltering  accents:  “In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven 
and  earth.”  However  we  may  understand,  or  imagine,  the 
beginning  of  the  natural  process,  the  formation  of  matter  and 
the  inception  of  motion,  we  see  above  the  confines  of  space 

1  Ps.  XXXIII,  9. 


148 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


and  time  the  everlasting  God,  the  absolutely  free  Creator  of 
all  things. 

3.  No  definite  theological  dogma  can  define  the  order  and 
process  of  the  genesis  of  the  world ;  this  is  rather  a  scientific 
than  a  religious  question.  The  Biblical  documents  themselves 
differ  widely  on  this  point,  whether  one  compares  the  stories 
in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  or  contrasts  both  of  them 
with  the  poetical  descriptions  in  Job  and  the  Psalms.1  And 
these  divergent  accounts  are  still  less  to  be  reconciled  with 
the  results  of  natural  science.  In  the  old  Babylonian  cos¬ 
mography,  on  which  the  Biblical  view  is  based,  the  earth, 
shaped  like  a  disk,  was  suspended  over  the  waters  of  the  ocean, 
while  above  it  was  the  solid  vault  of  heaven  like  a  ceiling. 
In  this  the  stars  were  fixed  like  lamps  to  light  the  earth,  and 
hidden  chambers  to  store  up  the  rain.  The  sciences  of  as¬ 
tronomy,  physics,  and  geology  have  abolished  these  child¬ 
like  conceptions  as  well  as  the  story  of  a  six-day  creation, 
where  vegetation  sprang  from  the  earth  even  before  the  sun, 
moon,  and  stars  appeared  in  the  firmament. 

The  fact  is  that  the  Biblical  account  is  not  intended  to 
depreciate  or  supersede  the  facts  established  by  natural 
science,  but  solely  to  accentuate  those  religious  truths  which 
the  latter  disregards.2  These  may  be  summed  up  in  the 
following  three  doctrines : 

4.  First.  Nature,  with  all  its  immeasurable  power  and 
grandeur,  its  wondrous  beauty  and  harmony,  is  not  inde¬ 
pendent,  but  is  the  work,  the  workshop,  and  the  working 
force  of  the  great  Master.  His  spirit  alone  is  the  active  power ; 
His  will  must  be  carried  out.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot  con¬ 
ceive  the  universe  otherwise  than  as  infinite  in  time  and 
space,  because  both  time  and  space  are  but  human  modes 
of  apperception.  In  fact,  we  cannot  think  of  a  Creator  with- 

1  Job  XXXVIII ;  Ps.  CIV. 

2  Comp.  Albo  I,  12,  and  Schlesinger’s  Notes,  625. 


THE  WORLD  AND  ITS  MASTER 


149 


out  a  creation,  because  any  potentiality  or  capacity  without 
execution  would  imply  imperfection  in  God.  Nevertheless 
we  must  conceive  of  God  as  the  designing  and  creating  in¬ 
tellect  of  the  universe,  infinitely  transcending  its  complex 
mechanism,  whose  will  is  expressed  involuntarily  by  each 
of  the  created  beings.  He  alone  is  the  living  God ;  He  has 
lent  existence  and  infinite  capacity  to  the  beings  of  the  world ; 
and  they,  in  achieving  their  appointed  purpose,  according 
to  the  poet’s  metaphor,  “ weave  His  living  garment.”  The 
Psalmist  also  sings  in  the  same  key : 

“Of  old  Thou  didst  lay  the  foundations  of  the  earth; 

And  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  Thy  hands ; 

They  shall  perish,  but  Thou  shalt  endure ; 

Yea,  all  of  them  shall  wax  old  like  a  garment. 

As  a  vesture  shalt  Thou  change  them,  and  they  shall  pass  away ; 

But  Thou  art  the  selfsame,  and  Thy  years  shall  have  no  end.”  1 

5 .  Second .  The  numberless  beings  and  forces  of  the  universe 
comprise  a  unity,  working  according  to  one  plan,  subserving 
a  common  purpose,  and  pursuing  in  their  development  and 
interaction  the  aim  which  God’s  wisdom  assigned  them  from 
the  beginning.  However  hostile  the  various  elements  may 
be  toward  each  other,  however  fierce  the  universal  conflict, 
“the  struggle  for  existence,”  still  over  all  the  discord  prevails 
a  higher  concord,  and  the  struggle  of  nature’s  forces  ends  in 
harmony  and  peace.  “He  maketh  peace  in  His  high  places.”  2 
Even  the  highest  type  of  heathenism,  the  Persian,  divided 
the  world  into  mutually  hostile  principles,  light  and  darkness, 
good  and  evil.  But  Judaism  proclaims  God  as  the  Creator 
of  both.  No  force  is  left  out  of  the  universal  plan;  each 
contributes  its  part  to  the  whole.  Consequently  the  very 
progress  of  natural  science  confirms  more  and  more  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  divine  Unity.  The  researches  of  science  are  ever 


1  Ps.  CII,  25-27. 


2  Job  XXV,  2. 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


150 

tending  toward  the  knowledge  of  universal  laws  of  growth, 
culminating  in  a  scheme  of  universal  evolution.  Hence  this 
supports  and  confirms  Jewish  monotheism,  which  knows  no 
power  of  evil  antagonistic  to  God. 

6.  Third.  The  world  is  good,  since  goodness  is  its  creator 
and  its  final  aim.  True  enough,  nature,  bent  with  “  tooth 
and  claw”  upon  annihilating  one  or  another  form  of  existence, 
is  quite  indifferent  to  man’s  sense  of  compassion  and  justice. 
Yet  in  the  wise,  though  inscrutable  plan  of  God  she  does 
but  serve  the  good.  We  see  how  the  lower  forms  of  life  ever 
serve  the  higher,  how  the  mineral  provides  food  for  the  vege¬ 
table,  while  the  animal  derives  its  food  from  the  vegetable 
world  and  from  lower  types  of  animals.  Thus  each  becomes 
a  means  of  vitality  for  a  higher  species.  So  by  the  continuous 
upward  striving  of  man  the  lower  passions,  with  their  evil 
tendencies,  work  more  and  more  toward  the  triumph  of  the 
good.  Man  unfolds  his  God-likeness ;  he  strives  to 

“Move  upward,  working  out  the  beast, 

And  let  the  ape  and  tiger  die.” 

7.  The  Biblical  story  of  Creation  expresses  the  perfect 
harmony  between  God’s  purpose  and  His  work  in  the  words, 
“And  behold,  it  was  good”  spoken  at  the  end  of  each  day’s 
Creation,  and  “behold,  it  was  very  good”  at  the  completion  of 
the  whole.  A  world  created  by  God  must  serve  the  highest 
good,  while,  on  the  contrary,  a  world  without  God  would  prove 
to  be  “the  worst  of  all  possible  worlds,”  as  Schopenhauer,  the 
philosopher  of  pessimism,  quite  correctly  concludes  from  his 
premises.  The  world-view  of  Judaism,  which  regards  the 
entire  economy  of  life  as  the  realization  of  the  all-encompassing 
plan  of  an  all-wise  Creator,  is  accordingly  an  energizing  op¬ 
timism,  or,  more  precisely,  meliorism.  This  view  is  voiced 
by  the  rabbis  in  many  significant  utterances,  such  as  the 
maxim  of  R.  Akiba,  “Whatsoever  the  Merciful  One  does, 


THE  WORLD  AND  ITS  MASTER 


I5i 

is  for  the  good,”  1  or  that  of  his  teacher,  Nahum  of  Gimzo, 
“This,  too,  is  for  the  good.”  2  His  disciple,  R.  Meir,  inferred 
from  the  Biblical  verse,  “  God  saw  all  that  He  had  made,  and 
behold,  it  was  very  good,”  that  “death,  too,  is  good.”  3  Others 
considered  that  suffering  and  even  sin  are  included  in  this 
verse,  because  every  apparent  evil  is  necessary  that  we  may 
struggle  and  overcome  it  for  the  final  victory  of  the  good.4 
As  an  ancient  Midrash  says:  “God  is  called  a  God  of  faith 
and  faithfulness,  because  it  was  His  faith  in  the  world  that 
caused  Him  to  bring  it  into  existence.”  5 

1  Ber.  60  b. 

2  Gam  zu  le  tobah ,  an  allusion  to  his  own  name.  Taan.  21b. 

3  Gen.  R.  IX,  5.  4  Gen.  R.  IX,  9-10.  5  Sifre  Deut.  307. 


CHAPTER  XXV 


Creation  as  the  Act  of  God 

i.  “Thus  shall  ye  say  unto  them:  The  gods  that  have 
not  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  these  shall  perish  from 
the  earth,  and  from  under  the  heavens.  He  that  hath  made 
the  earth  by  His  power,  that  hath  established  the  world  by 
His  wisdom,  and  hath  stretched  out  the  heavens  by  His  under¬ 
standing  .  .  .  the  Lord  God  is  the  true  God.”  1  With  this  dec¬ 
laration  of  war  against  heathenism,  the  prophet  drew  the  line, 
once  for  all,  between  the  uncreated,  transcendent  God  and 
the  created,  perishable  universe.  It  is  true  that  Plato  spoke 
of  primordial  and  eternal  matter  and  Aristotle  of  an  eternally 
rotating  celestial  sphere,  and  that  even  Biblical  exegetes, 
such  as  Ibn  Ezra,2  inferred  from  the  Creation  story  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  primeval  chaotic  matter.  Yet,  on  the  whole,  the 
Jewish  idea  of  God  has  demanded  the  assumption  that  even 
this  primitive  matter  was  created  by  God,  or,  as  most  thinkers 
have  phrased  it,  that  God  created  the  world  out  of  nothing. 
This  doctrine  was  voiced  as  early  as  the  Maccabean  period 
in  the  appeal  made  by  the  heroic  mother  to  the  youngest 
of  her  seven  sons.3  In  the  same  spirit  R.  Gamaliel  II  scorn¬ 
fully  rejects  the  suggestion  of  a  heretic  that  God  used  primeval 
substances  already  extant  in  creating  the  world.4 

1  Jer.  X,  11-12  and  io. 

2  See  his  commentary  to  Gen.  I,  i ;  comp.  Neumark,  1.  c.,  I,  70,  71,  80  f.,  87, 
412,  439,  515;  Husik,  1.  c.,  p.  190;  D.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  619-660. 

3 II  Macc.  VII,  28. 

4  Gen.  R.  I,  12;  X.  3;  Hag.  n  b-13  a;  Slavonic  Enoch,  XXV;  see  J.  E., 
art.  Cosmogony  and  Creation;  Enc.  Rel.  and  Eth.,  151  ff.,  167  f. 

152 


CREATION  AS  THE  ACT  OF  GOD 


153 


2.  Of  course,  thinking  people  will  ever  be  confronted  by 
the  problem  how  a  transcendental  God  could  call  into  existence 
a  world  of  matter,  creating  it  within  the  limits  of  space  and 
time,  without  Himself  becoming  involved  in  the  process.  It 
would  seem  that  He  must  by  the  very  act  subject  Himself 
to  the  limitations  and  mutations  of  the  universe.  Hence 
some  of  the  ancient  Jewish  teachers  came  under  the  influence 
of  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  cosmogonies  in  their  later  Hel¬ 
lenistic  forms,  and  resorted  to  the  theory  of  intermediary 
forces.  Some  of  these  adopted  the  Pythagorean  conception 
of  the  mysterious  power  of  letters  and  numbers,  which  they 
communicated  to  the  initiated  as  secret  lore,  with  the  result 
that  the  suspicion  of  heresy  rested  largely  upon  “  those  who 
knew,”  the  so-called  Gnostics. 

The  difficulty  of  assuming  a  creation  at  a  fixed  period  of 
time  was  met  in  many  different  ways.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  R.  Abbahu  of  Caesarea  in  the  fourth  century  offered 
the  explanation:  “God  caused  one  world  after  another  to 
enter  into  existence,  until  He  produced  the  one  of  which  He 
said:  ‘Behold,  this  is  good.’”1  Still  this  opinion  seems  to 
have  been  expressed  by  even  earlier  sages,  as  it  is  adopted  by 
Origen,  a  Church  father  of  the  third  century,  who  admitted 
his  great  debt  to  Jewish  teachers.2 

The  medieval  Jewish  philosophers  evaded  the  difficulty 
by  the  Aristotelian  expedient  of  connecting  the  concept  of 
time  with  the  motion  of  the  spheres.  Thus  time  was  created 
with  the  celestial  world,  and  timelessness  remained  an  attribute 
of  the  uncreated  God.3  Such  attempts  at  harmonization 
prove  the  one  point  of  importance  to  us,  —  which,  indeed, 
was  frankly  stated  by  Maimonides,  —  that  we  cannot  accept 
literally  the  Biblical  account  of  the  creation. 

3.  The  modern  world  has  been  lifted  bodily  out  of  the 

1  Gen.  R.  IX,  1.  2  See  Strauss,  1.  c.,  645  f. 

3  See  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  91-128;  Kaufmann,  1.  c.,  280  f.,  306,  387  f. 


i54 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Babylonian  and  so-called  Ptolemaic  world,  with  its  narrow 
horizon,  through  the  labors  of  such  men  as  Copernicus,  Galileo, 
Newton,  Lyall,  and  Darwin.  We  live  in  a  world  immeasurable 
in  terms  of  either  space  or  time,  a  world  where  evolution  works 
through  eons  of  time  and  an  infinite  number  of  stages.  Such 
a  world  gives  rise  to  concepts  of  the  working  of  God  in  nature 
totally  different  from  those  of  the  seers  and  sages  of  former 
generations,  ideas  of  which  those  thinkers  could  not  even 
dream.  To  the  mind  of  the  modern  scientist  the  entire  cos¬ 
mic  life,  extending  over  countless  millions  of  years,  forming 
starry  worlds  without  end,  is  moved  by  energy  arising  within. 
It  is  a  continuous  flow  of  existence,  a  process  of  formation 
and  re-formation,  which  can  have  no  beginning  and  no  end. 
How  is  this  evolutionist  view  to  be  reconciled  with  the  belief 
in  a  divine  act  of  creation  ?  This  is  the  problem  which  modern 
theology  has  set  itself,  perhaps  the  greatest  which  it  must  solve. 

Ultimately,  however,  the  problem  is  no  more  difficult  now 
than  it  was  to  the  first  man  who  pondered  over  the  beginnings 
of  life  in  the  childhood  of  the  world.  The  same  answer  fits 
both  modes  of  thought,  with  only  a  different  process  of  reason¬ 
ing.  Whether  we  count  the  world’s  creation  by  days  or  by 
millions  of  years,  the  truth  of  the  first  verse  of  Genesis  remains : 
“In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.” 
In  our  theories  the  whole  complicated  world-process  is  but 
the  working  out  of  simple  laws.  This  leads  back  as  swiftly 
and  far  more  surely  than  did  the  primitive  cosmology  to 
an  omnipotent  and  omniscient  creative  Power,  defining  at  the 
very  outset  the  aim  of  the  stupendous  whole,  and  carrying  its 
comprehensive  plan  into  reality,  step  by  step.  We  who  are 
the  products  of  time  cannot  help  applying  the  relation  of  time 
to  the  work  of  the  Creator;  time  is  so  interwoven  with  our 
being  that  a  modern  evolutionist,  Bergson,  considers  it  the 
fundamental  element  of  reality.  Thus  it  is  natural  that  we 
should  think  of  God  as  setting  the  first  atoms  and  forces  of 


CREATION  AS  THE  ACT  OF  GOD 


155 


the  universe  into  motion  somewhere  and  somehow,  at  a  given 
moment.  Through  this  act,  we  imagine,  the  order  pre¬ 
vailing  through  an  infinitude  of  space  and  time  was  established 
for  the  great  fabric  of  life.  To  earlier  thinkers  such  an  act 
of  a  supermundane  and  immutable  God  appeared  as  a  single 
act.  The  idea  of  prime  importance  in  all  this  is  the  free 
activity  of  the  Creator  in  contradistinction  to  the  blind 
necessity  of  nature,  the  underlying  theory  of  all  pagan  or  un¬ 
religious  philosophy.1  The  world  of  God,  which  is  the  world 
of  morality,  and  which  leads  to  man,  the  image  of  God,  must 
be  based  upon  the  free,  purposive  creative  act  of  God. 
Whether  such  an  act  was  performed  once  for  all  or  is  ever¬ 
lastingly  renewed,  is  a  quite  secondary  matter  for  religion, 
however  important  it  may  be  to  philosophy,  or  however 
fundamental  to  science.  In  our  daily  morning  prayers, 
which  refer  to  the  daily  awakening  to  a  life  seemingly  new, 
God  is  proclaimed  as  “He  who  reneweth  daily  the  work  of 
creation.”  2 

1  See  C.  Seligman,  Judenthum  und  Moderne  Weltanschauung. 

2  The  first  benediction  before  the  Shema. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 


The  Maintenance  and  Government  of  the  World 

1.  For  our  religious  consciousness  the  doctrine  of  divine 
maintenance  and  government  of  the  world  is  far  more  im¬ 
portant  than  that  of  creation.  It  opposes  the  view  of  deism 
that  God  withdrew  from  His  creation,  indifferent  to  the 
destiny  of  His  creatures.  He  is  rather  the  ever-present  Mind 
and  Will  in  all  the  events  of  life.  The  world  which  He  created 
is  maintained  by  Him  in  its  continuous  activity,  the  object 
of  His  incessant  care. 

2.  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  natural  law,  but  presents 
the  changing  phenomena  of  nature  as  special  acts  of  God 
and  considers  the  natural  forces  His  messengers  carrying 
out  His  will.  “He  opens  the  windows  of  heaven  to  let  the' 
rain  descend  upon  the  earth.”1  “He  leads  out  the  hosts 
of  the  stars  according  to  their  number  and  calleth  them  by 
name.”  2  He  makes  the  sun  rise  and  set.  “He  says  to  the 
snow:  Fall  to  the  earth!”3  and  calls  to  the  wind  to  blow 
and  to  the  lightning  to  flash.4  He  causes  the  produce  of  the 
earth  and  the  drought  which  destroys  them.  “He  opens  the 
womb  to  make  beasts  and  men  bring  forth  their  young;” 
“He  shuts  up  the  womb  to  make  them  barren.”  5  “He  also 
provides  the  food  for  all  His  creatures  in  due  season,  even 
for  the  young  ravens  when  they  cry.”  6  His  breath  keeps  all 
alive.  “He  withdraweth  their  breath,  and  they  perish,  and 

1  Gen.  VII,  ii  ;  VIII,  2.  2  Isa.  XL,  26. 

3  Job  XXXVI,  6.  4  Job  XXXVIII,  25. 

6  Gen.  XX,  17-18;  XXX,  22.  6  Ps.  CXLVII,  8-9. 

156 


MAINTENANCE  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD  157 


return  to  their  dust.  He  sendeth  forth  His  spirit,  they  are 
created;  He  reneweth  the  face  of  the  earth.”  1  We  are  told 
also  that  God  assigns  to  each  being  its  functions,  telling  the 
earth  to  bring  forth  fruit,2  the  sea  not  to  trespass  its  boundary,3 
the  stars  and  the  seas  to  maintain  their  order.4  To  each 
one  He  hath  set  a  measure,  a  law  which  they  dare  not  trans¬ 
gress.  God’s  wisdom  works  in  them ;  they  all  are  subject 
to  His  rule. 

3.  This  conclusion  betokens  an  obvious  improvement 
upon  the  earlier  and  more  childlike  view.  It  recognizes  that 
there  is  an  order  in  the  universe  and  all  under  divine  super¬ 
vision.  Thus  Jeremiah  speaks  of  a  covenant  of  God  with 
heaven  and  earth,  and  of  the  laws  which  they  must  obey,5 
and  in  Genesis  the  rainbow  is  represented  as  a  sign  of  the 
covenant  of  peace  made  by  God  with  the  whole  earth.6  As 
God  “maketh  peace  in  the  heavens  above,”  7  He  establishes 
order  in  the  world.  As  the  various  powers  of  nature  are  in¬ 
vested  with  a  degree  of  independence,  God’s  sovereignty 
manifests  itself  in  the  regularity  with  which  they  interact 
and  cooperate.8  The  lore  of  the  mystics  speaks  even  of  an 
oath  which  God  administered  upon  His  holy  Name  to  the 
heavens  and  the  stars,  the  sea  and  the  abyss,  that  they  should 
never  break  their  designated  bounds  or  disturb  the  whole 
order  of  creation.9 

4.  Further  progress  is  noted  in  the  liturgy,  in  such  expres¬ 
sions  as  that  “God  reneweth  daily  the  work  of  creation,” 
or  “He  openeth  every  morning  the  gate  of  heaven  to  let  the 
sun  come  out  of  its  chambers  in  all  its  splendor”  and  “at 
eventide  He  maketh  it  return  through  the  portals  of  the  west.” 
Again,  “He  reneweth  His  creative  power  in  every  phenomenon 

1  Ps.  CIV,  27-30.  2  Gen.  I,  11.  3  Ps.  CIV,  8. 

^  Gen.  VIII,  22 ;  Job  XXXVIII,  33.  6  Jer.  XXXI,  39 ;  XXXIII,  25. 

6  Gen.  IX,  12  f.  7  Job  XXV,  2. 

8  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  295  f. ;  D.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  629-643. 

#  Enoch  LXIX,  15-25;  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  3;  Suk.  53  a  b;  Hag.  12  a. 


158 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  nature  and  in  every  turn  of  the  season;”  “He  provideth 
every  living  being  with  its  sustenance.”  1  Indeed,  in  the  view 
of  Judaism  the  maintenance  of  the  entire  household  of  nature 
is  one  continuous  act  of  God  which  can  neither  be  interrupted 
nor  limited  in  time.  God  in  His  infinite  wisdom  works  for¬ 
ever  through  the  same  laws  which  were  in  force  at  the  begin¬ 
ning,  and  which  shall  continue  through  all  the  realms  of  time 
and  space. 

We  feeble  mortals,  of  course,  see  but  “the  hem  of  His  gar¬ 
ment”  and  hear  only  “a  whisper  of  His  voice.”  Still  from 
the  deeper  promptings  of  our  soul  we  learn  that  science  does 
not  touch  the  inmost  essence  of  the  world  when  it  finds  a 
law  of  necessity  in  the  realm  of  nature.  The  universe  is 
maintained  and  governed  by  a  moral  order.  Moral  objects 
are  attained  by  the  forces  of  the  elements,  “the  messengers 
of  God  who  fulfilled  His  word.”  2  Both  the  hosts  of  heaven 
and  the  creatures  of  the  earth  do  His  bidding ;  their  every 
act,  great  or  small,  is  as  He  has  ordered.  Yet  of  them  all 
man  alone  is  made  in  God’s  image,  and  can  work  self-con¬ 
sciously  and  freely  for  a  moral  purpose.  Indeed,  as  the  rabbis 
express  it,  he  has  been  called  as  “the  co-worker  with  God 
in  the  work  of  creation.”  3 

5.  The  conception  of  a  world-order  also  had  to  undergo 
a  long  development.  The  theory  of  pagan  antiquity,  echoed 
in  both  Biblical  and  post-Biblical  writings,  is  that  the  world 
is  definitely  limited,  with  both  a  beginning  and  an  end.  As 
heaven  and  earth  came  into  being,  so  they  will  wax  old  and 
shrink  like  a  garment,  while  sun,  moon,  and  stars  will  lose 
their  brightness  and  fall  back  into  the  primal  chaos.4  The 
belief  in  a  cataclysmic  ending  of  the  world  is  a  logical  corollary 
of  the  belief  in  the  birth  of  the  world.  In  striking  contrast, 
the  prophets  hold  forth  the  hope  of  a  future  regeneration  of 

1  See  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  37,  96,  290,  292.  2  Ps.  CIII,  20. 

8  Shab.  1 19  b.  4  ps.  cil,  27 ;  Isa.  XXXIV,  4. 


MAINTENANCE  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD  159 


the  world.  God  will  create  “a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth” 
where  all  things  will  arise  in  new  strength  and  beauty.1 

This  hope,  as  all  eschatology,  was  primarily  related  to 
the  regeneration  of  the  Jewish  people.  Accordingly,  the 
rabbis  speak  of  two  worlds,2  this  world  and  the  world  to  come. 
They  consider  the  present  life  only  a  preliminary  of  the  world 
to  come,  in  which  the  divine  plan  of  creation  is  to  be  worked 
out  for  all  humanity  through  the  truths  emanating  from  Israel. 
This  whole  conception  rested  upon  a  science  now  superseded, 
the  geocentric  view  of  the  universe,  which  made  the  earth 
and  especially  man  the  final  object  of  creation.  For  us  only 
a  figurative  meaning  adheres  to  the  two  worlds  of  the  medieval 
belief,  following  each  other  after  the  lapse  of  a  fixed  period 
of  time.  On  the  one  hand,  we  see  one  infinite  fabric  of  life 
in  this  visible  world  with  its  millions  of  suns  and  planets, 
among  which  our  earth  is  only  an  insignificant  speck  in  the 
sky.  With  our  limited  understanding  we  endeavor  to  pen¬ 
etrate  more  and  more  into  the  eternal  laws  of  this  illimitable 
cosmos.  On  the  other  hand,  we  hold  that  there  is  a  moral 
and  spiritual  world  which  comprises  the  divine  ideals  and 
eternal  objects  of  life.  Both  are  reflected  in  the  mind  of  man, 
who  enters  into  the  one  by  his  intellect  and  into  the  other  by 
his  emotions  of  yearning  and  awe.  At  the  same  time  both 
are  the  manifestation  of  God,  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  all. 

1  Isa.  LXV,  17. 

2  See  J.  E.  and  Enc.  of  Rel.  and  Eth.,  art.  “  Eschatology  ” ;  Schuerer,  G.  V.  I. 

II,  545- 


CHAPTER  XXVII 


Miracles  and  the  Cosmic  Order 

I.  “  Who  is  like  unto  Thee,  O  Lord,  among  the  mighty  ? 

Who  is  like  unto  Thee,  glorious  in  holiness, 

Fearful  in  praises,  doing  wonders !  ” 1 

Thus  sang  Israel  at  the  Red  Sea  in  words  which  are  constantly 
reechoed  in  our  liturgy.  Nothing  impresses  the  religious 
sense  of  man  so  much  as  unusual  phenomena  in  nature,  which 
seem  to  interrupt  the  wonted  course  of  events  and  thus  to 
reveal  the  workings  of  a  higher  Power.  A  miracle  —  that 
is,  a  thing  “wondered”  at,  because  not  understood  —  is 
always  regarded  by  Scripture  as  a  “sign”2  or  “proof”3 
of  the  power  of  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  impossible.  The 
child-like  mind  of  the  past  knew  nothing  of  fixed  or  immu¬ 
table  laws  of  nature.  Therefore  the  question  is  put  in  all 
simplicity:  “Is  anything  too  hard  for  the  Lord?”4  “Is 
the  Lord’s  hand  waxed  short ? ”  5  “Or  should  He  who  created 
heaven  and  earth  not  be  able  to  create  something  which 
never  was  before?”  6  Should  “He  who  maketh  a  man’s 
mouth,  or  makes  him  deaf,  dumb,  seeing  or  blind,”  7  not  be 
able  also  to  open  the  mouth  of  the  dumb  beast  or  the  eyes 
of  the  blind?  Should  not  He  who  killeth  and  giveth  life 
have  the  power  also  to  call  the  dead  back  to  life,  if  He  sees 
fit?  Should  not  He  who  openeth  the  womb  for  every  birth, 
be  able  to  open  it  for  her  who  is  ninety  years  old  ?  Or  when  a 

1  Ex.  XV,  ii.  2  Oth ,  sign  for  miracle,  Ex.  IV,  8,  17,  and  elsewhere. 

3  Mopheth ,  Ex.  VII,  3,  and  elsewhere.  4  Gen.  XVIII,  14. 

6  Num.  XI,  23.  6  Ex.  XXXIV,  10;  Num.  XVI,  30.  7  Ex.  IV,  11. 

160 


MIRACLES  AND  THE  COSMIC  ORDER 


161 


whole  land  is  wicked,  to  shut  the  wombs  of  all  its  inhabitants 
that  they  may  remain  barren?  Again,  should  not  He  who 
makes  the  sun  come  forth  every  morning  from  the  gates  of 
the  East  and  enter  each  night  the  portals  of  the  West,  not 
be  able  to  change  this  order  once,  and  cause  it  to  stand  still  in 
the  midst  of  its  course  ?  1 

So  long  as  natural  phenomena  are  considered  to  be  sep¬ 
arate  acts  of  the  divine  will,  an  unusual  event  is  merely  an 
extraordinary  manifestation  of  this  same  power,  “the  finger 
of  God.”  The  people  of  Biblical  times  never  questioned 
whether  a  miracle  happened  or  could  happen.  Their  concern 
was  to  see  it  as  the  work  of  the  arm  of  God  either  for  His 
faithful  ones  or  against  His  adversaries. 

2.  With  the  advance  of  thought,  miracles  began  to  be 
regarded  as  interruptions  of  an  established  order  of  creation. 
The  question  then  arose,  why  the  all-knowing  Creator  should 
allow  deviations  from  His  own  laws.  As  the  future  was 
present  to  Him  at  the  outset,  why  did  He  not  make  provision 
in  advance  for  such  special  cases  as  He  foresaw?  This  was 
exactly  the  remedy  which  the  rabbis  furnished.  They  de¬ 
clared  that  at  Creation  God  provided  for  certain  extraor¬ 
dinary  events,  so  that  a  latent  force,  established  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  at  the  beginning  of  the  world,  is  responsible  for  incidents 
which  appeared  at  the  time  to  be  true  interferences  with  the 
world  order.  Thus  God  had  made  a  special  covenant,  as  it 
were,  with  the  work  of  creation  that  at  the  appointed  time 
the  Red  Sea  should  divide  before  Israel ;  that  sun  and  moon 
should  stand  still  at  the  bidding  of  Joshua;  that  fire  should 
not  consume  the  three  youths,  Hananel,  Mishael,  and  Aza- 
riah ;  that  the  sea-monster  should  spit  forth  Jonah  alive ; 
together  with  other  so-called  miracles.2  The  same  idea 

1  Josh.  X,  12-14.  See  Joel :  “D.  Mosaismus  u.  d.  Wunder,”  in  Jb.  d.  Jued. 
Gesch.  u.  Lit.,  1904,  p.  66-94. 

2  Mek.  Beshallah  3 ;  Gen.  R.  V,  4. 

M 


162 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


occasioned  the  other  Haggadic  saying  that  shortly  before 
the  completion  of  the  creation  on  the  evening  of  the  sixth  day 
God  placed  certain  miraculous  forces  in  nature.  Through 
them  the  earth  opened  to  swallow  Korah  and  his  band,  the 
rock  in  the  wilderness  gave  water  for  the  thirsty  multitude, 
and  Balaam’s  ass  spoke  like  a  human  being;  through  them 
also  the  rainbow  appeared  after  the  flood,  the  manna  rained 
from  heaven,  Aaron’s  rod  burst  forth  with  almond  blossoms 
and  fruit,  and  other  wondrous  events  happened  in  their 
proper  time.1 

3.  Neither  the  rabbis  nor  the  medieval  Jewish  thinkers 
expressed  any  doubt  of  the  credibility  of  the  Biblical  miracles. 
The  latter,  indeed,  rationalized  miracles  as  well  as  other  things, 
and  considered  some  of  them  imaginary.  Saadia  accepts  all 
the  Biblical  miracles  except  the  speaking  serpent  in  Paradise 
and  the  speaking  ass  of  Balaam,  considering  these  to  be 
parables  rather  than  actual  occurrences.2  In  general,  both 
Jewish  and  Mohammedan  theologians  assumed  that  special 
forces  hidden  in  nature  were  utilized  by  the  prophets  and 
saints  to  testify  to  their  divine  mission.  These  powers  were 
attained  by  their  lofty  intellects,  which  lifted  them  up  to 
the  sphere  of  the  Supreme  Intellect.  All  medieval  attempts 
to  solve  the  problem  of  miracles  were  based  upon  this  curious 
combination  of  Aristotelian  cosmology  and  Mohammedan 
or  Jewish  theology.3  True,  Maimonides  rejects  a  number 
of  miracles  as  contrary  to  natural  law,  and  refers  to  the 
rabbinical  saying  that  some  of  the  miraculous  events  narrated 
in  Scripture  were  so  only  in  appearance.  Still  he  claims  for 

1  Aboth  V,  6;  comp.  Ab.  d.  R.  N.,  ed.  Schechter,  95;  Mek.  Beshallah,  5; 
Sifre  Debarim,  355;  Pes.  54  a;  P.  d.  R.  Eli.,  XIX;  Targ.  Y.  to  Num.  XXII, 
28,  where  a  different  list  of  ten  wondrous  things  is  given. 

2  Emunoth  we  Deoth  II,  44,  68.  Comp.  Ibn  Ezra  to  Gen.  Ill,  1,  and  Num. 
XXII,  28. 

3  Moreh,  II,  25,  35,  37 ;  III,  24 ;  Yesode  ha  Torah,  VII,  7 ;  VIII,  1-3.  Comp. 
Joel :  Moses  Maimonides,  p.  77. 


MIRACLES  AND  THE  COSMIC  ORDER 


163 


Moses,  as  the  Mohammedans  did  for  Mohammed,  miraculous 
powers  derived  from  the  sphere  of  the  Supreme  Intellect. 
In  a  lengthy  chapter  on  miracles  Albo  follows  Maimonides,1 
while  his  teacher  Crescas  considers  the  Biblical  miracles  to 
be  direct  manifestations  of  the  creative  activity  of  God.2 
Gersonides  has  really  two  opinions;  in  his  commentary  he 
reduces  all  miracles  to  natural  processes,  but  in  his  philo¬ 
sophical  work  he  adopts  the  view  of  Maimonides.3  Jehuda 
ha  Levi  alone  insisted  on  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  as  historic 
evidence  of  the  divine  calling  of  the  prophets.4  To  all  the 
rest,  the  miracle  is  not  performed  by  God  but  by  the  divinely 
endowed  man.  God  himself  is  no  longer  conceived  of  as  chang¬ 
ing  the  cosmic  order.  Both  He  and  the  world  created  by  His 
will  remain  ever  the  same.  Still,  according  to  this  theory, 
certain  privileged  men  are  endowed  with  special  powers  by 
the  Supreme  Intellect,  and  by  these  they  can  perform  miracles. 

4.  It  is  evident  that  in  all  this  the  problem  of  miracles  is 
not  solved,  nor  even  correctly  stated.  Both  rabbinical  liter¬ 
ature  and  the  Bible  abound  with  miracles  about  certain  holy 
places  and  holy  persons,  which  they  never  venture  to  doubt. 
But  the  rabbis  were  not  miracle-workers  like  the  Essenes  and 
their  Christian  successors.5  On  the  contrary,  they  sought  to 
repress  the  popular  credulity  and  hunger  for  the  miraculous, 
saying :  “The  present  generation  is  not  worthy  to  have  mir- 

1  Ikkarim,  I,  18. 

2  Or  Adonai,  III,  5 ;  comp.  Joel :  Don  Chasdai  Crescas,  p.  70. 

3  Milhamoth  Adonai,  last  chapters;  comp.  J.  E.,  art.  Levi  ben  Gershom. 

4  Cuzari,  II,  54. 

5  The  A  ns  he  maaseh,  mentioned  together  with  the  Hasidim  in  Suk.  V,  4, 
and  Sot.  IX,  15,  are  wonderworkers,  of  whom  Haninah  ben  Dosa,  the  last,  is 
singled  out.  The  same  epithet  was  given  to  Simeon  ben  Yochai  in  Aramaic, 
I shan,  see  Lev.  Rabba  XXII,  2,  and  to  R.  Assi,  eod.  XIX,  1,  —  where  it 
means,  worker  in  nature’s  realm.  Thus  Nahum  of  Gimzo  is  called  “trained 
in  the  skill  to  perform  miracles ” —  Taan.  21  a;  Phinehas  ben  Jair  was  also  a 
wonderworker  —  Hul.  7  a.  The  whole  portion  regarding  rain-miracles  seems 
to  be  taken  from  a  work  on  the  miracles  of  saints. 


164 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


acles  performed  for  them,  like  the  former  ones;”  1  or  “The 
providing  of  each  living  soul  with  its  daily  food,  or  the  recovery 
of  men  from  a  severe  disease  is  as  great  a  miracle  as  any  of 
those  told  in  Scripture;”  2  or  again,  “Of  how  small  account 
is  a  person  for  whom  the  cosmic  order  must  be  disturbed !” 3 
Thus  when  the  wise  men  of  Rome  asked  the  Jewish  sages : 
“If  your  God  is  omnipotent,  as  you  claim,  why  does  He  not 
banish  from  the  world  the  idols,  which  are  so  loathsome  to 
Him?”  they  replied:  “Do  you  really  desire  God  to  destroy 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  because  fools  worship  them?  The 
world  continues  its  regular  course,  and  idolaters  will  not  go 
unpunished.”  4 

5.  In  Judaism  neither  Biblical  nor  rabbinical  miracles  are 
to  be  accepted  as  proof  of  a  doctrinal  or  practical  teaching.5 
The  Deuteronomic  law  expressly  states  that  false  prophets 
can  perform  miracles  by  which  they  mislead  the  multitude.6 
We  can  therefore  ascribe  no  intrinsic  religious  importance  to 
miracles.  The  fact  is  that  miracles  occur  only  among  people 
who  are  ignorant  of  natural  law  and  thus  predisposed  to  accept 
marvels.  They  are  the  products  of  human  imagination  and 
credulity.  They  have  only  a  subjective,  not  an  objective 
value.  They  are  psychological,  not  physical  facts. 

The  attitude  of  Maimonides  and  Albo  toward  Biblical 
miracles  is  especially  significant.  The  former  declares  in 
his  great  Code: 7  “Israel’s  belief  in  Moses  and  his  law  did 
not  rest  on  miracles,  for  miracles  rather  create  doubt  in  the 
mind  of  the  believer.  Faith  must  rest  on  its  intrinsic  truth, 
and  this  can  never  be  subverted  by  miracles,  which  may  be 
of  a  deceitful  nature.”  Albo  devotes  a  lengthy  chapter  to 
developing  this  idea  still  further,  undoubtedly  referring  to 
the  Church ;  he  speaks  of  miracles  wrought  by  both  Biblical 

1  Taan.  18  b.  2  Pes.  118  a;  Ned.  41  a.  3  Shab.  53  b. 

4  Ab.  Za.  IV,  7;  comp.  Ber.  4  a,  20  a;  Sanh.  97  b.  6  B.  M.  59  b. 

6  Deut.  XIII-  2-6.  7  Yesode  ha  Torah ,  VIII,  1-5. 


MIRACLES  AND  THE  COSMIC  ORDER  165 

and  Talmudic  heroes,  such  as  Onias  the  rain-maker,  Nicode- 
mus  ben  Gorion,  Hanina  ben  Dosa,  and  Phinehas  ben  Jair, 
the  popular  saints.1  In  modern  times  Mendelssohn,  when 
challenged  by  the  Lutheran  pastor  Lavater  either  to  accept 
the  Christian  faith  or  refute  it,  attacked  especially  the  basic 
Christian  faith  in  miracles.  He  stated  boldly  that  “miracles 
prove  nothing,  since  every  religion  bases  its  claims  on  them 
and  consequently  the  truth  of  one  would  disprove  the  con¬ 
vincing  proof  of  the  other.”  2 

6.  Our  entire  modern  mode  of  thinking  demands  the 
complete  recognition  of  the  empire  of  law  throughout  the 
universe,  manifesting  the  all-permeating  will  of  God.  The 
whole  cosmic  order  is  one  miracle.  No  room  is  left  for  single 
or  exceptional  miracles.  Only  a  primitive  age  could  think 
of  God  as  altering  the  order  of  nature  which  He  had  fixed, 
so  as  to  let  iron  float  on  water  like  wood  to  please  one  person 
here,3  or  to  stop  sun,  star,  or  sea  in  their  courses  in  order  to 
help  or  harm  mankind  there.4  It  is  more  important  for  us 
to  inquire  into  the  law  of  the  mind  by  which  the  fact  itself  may 
differ  from  the  peculiar  form  given  it  by  a  narrator.  With 
our  historical  methods  unknown  to  former  ages,  we  cannot 
accept  any  story  of  a  miracle  without  seeking  its  intrinsic 
historical  accuracy.  After  all,  the  miracle  as  narrated  is 
but  a  human  conception  of  what,  under  God’s  guidance, 
really  happened. 

Accordingly,  we  must  leave  the  final  interpretation  of  the 
Biblical  narratives  to  the  individual,  to  consider  them  as 
historical  facts  or  as  figurative  presentations  of  religious 
ideas.  Even  now  some  people  will  prefer  to  believe  that  the 
Ten  Commandments  emanated  from  God  Himself  in  audible 
tones,  as  medieval  thinkers  maintained.5  Some  will  adopt 
the  old  semi-rationalistic  explanation  that  He  created  a  voice 

1  Ikkarim ,  I,  18.  2  Mendelssohn  :  G.  Sch.,  Ill,  65,  120  f.,  320  f. 

3 II  Kings  VI,  6.  4  Joshua  X,  13.  5  Moreh ,  II,  33. 


1 66 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


for  this  special  purpose.  Others  will  hold  it  more  worthy 
of  God  to  communicate  directly  with  man,  from  spirit  to 
spirit,  without  the  use  of  sensory  means ;  these  will  therefore 
take  the  Biblical  description  as  figurative  or  mythical.  In 
fact,  he  who  does  not  cling  to  the  letter  of  the  Scripture  will 
probably  regard  all  the  miracles  as  poetical  views  of  divine 
Providence,  as  child-like  imagery  expressing  the  ancient 
view  of  the  eternal  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God.  To  us 
also  God  is  “a  Doer  of  wonders/’  but  we  experience  His  wonder¬ 
working  powers  in  ourselves.  We  see  wonders  in  the  acts 
of  human  freedom  which  rises  superior  to  the  blind  forces  of 
nature.  The  true  miracle  consists  in  the  divine  power  within 
man  which  aids  him  to  accomplish  all  that  is  great  and  good. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 


Providence  and  the  Moral  Government  of  the  World 

1.  None  of  the  precious  truths  of  Judaism  has  become  more 
indispensable  than  the  belief  in  divine  Providence,  which  we 
see  about  us  in  ever  new  and  striking  forms.  Man  would 
succumb  from  fear  alone,  beholding  the  dangers  about  him  on 
every  side,  were  he  not  sustained  by  a  conviction  that  there 
is  an  all-wise  Power  who  rules  the  world  for  a  sublime  purpose. 
We  know  that  even  in  direst  distress  we  are  guided  by  a  di¬ 
vine  hand  that  directs  everything  finally  toward  the  good. 
Wherever  we  are,  we  are  protected  by  God,  who  watches  over 
the  destinies  of  man  as  “does  the  eagle  who  hovers  over  her 
young  and  bears  them  aloft  on  her  pinions.”  Each  of  us  is 
assigned  his  place  in  the  all-encompassing  plan.  Such  knowl¬ 
edge  and  such  faith  as  this  comprise  the  greatest  comfort  and 
joy  which  the  Jewish  religion  offers.  Both  the  narratives  and 
the  doctrines  of  Scripture  are  filled  with  this  idea  of  Provi¬ 
dence  working  in  the  history  of  individuals  and  nations.1 

2.  Providence  implies  first,  provision ,  and  second,  predesti¬ 
nation  in  accordance  with  the  divine  plan  for  the  government 
of  the  world.  As  God’s  dominion  over  the  visible  world  ap¬ 
pears  in  the  eternal  order  of  the  cosmos,  so  in  the  moral 
world,  where  action  arises  from  freely  chosen  aims,  God  is 

1  The  Hebrew  term  Hashgaha  —  Providence  —  is  derived  from  Ps.  XXXIII, 
14,  hishgiah,  “He  observes.”  See  J.  E.,  art.  Providence;  Davidson,  I.  c.,  178- 
182;  Hamburger,  R.  W.  B.  II,  art.  Bestimmung;  Rauwenhoff,  1.  c.,  538  f. ; 
Ludwig  Philippson Israel.  Religionsl.,”  II,  98  f. ;  Formstecher:  “ Religion 
des  Geistes 114-119. 


167 


i68 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Ruler  of  a  moral  government.  Thus  He  directs  all  the  acts 
of  men  toward  the  end  which  He  has  set.  Judaism  is  most 
sharply  contrasted  with  heathenism  at  this  point.  Heathen¬ 
ism  either  deifies  nature  or  merges  the  deity  into  nature. 
Thus  there  is  no  place  for  a  God  who  knows  all  things  and 
provides  for  all  in  advance.  Blind  fate  rules  all  the  forces  of 
life,  including  the  deities  themselves.  Therefore  chance  in¬ 
cidents  in  nature  or  the  positions  of  the  stars  are  taken  as 
indications  of  destiny.  Hence  the  belief  in  oracles  and  divi¬ 
nation,  in  the  observation  of  flying  arrows  and  floating  clouds, 
of  the  color  and  shape  of  the  liver  of  sacrificial  animals,  and 
other  signs  of  heaven  and  earth  which  were  to  hint  at  the 
future.1 

On  the  other  hand,  Judaism  sees  in  all  things,  not  the  for¬ 
tuitous  dealings  of  a  blind  and  relentless  fate,  but  the  dispen¬ 
sations  of  a  wise  and  benign  Providence.  It  knows  of  no 
event  which  is  not  foreordained  by  God.  It  sanctioned  the 
decision  by  lot 2  and  the  appeal  to  the  oracle  (the  Urim  and 
Thummim) 3  only  temporarily,  during  the  Biblical  period. 
But  soon  it  recognized  entirely  the  will  of  God  as  the  Ruler 
of  destiny,  and  the  people  accepted  the  belief  that  “the  days,” 
“the  destinies,”  and  even  “the  tears”  of  man  are  all  written 
in  His  “book.”  4  Thus  they  perceived  God  as  “He  who  knows 
from  the  beginning  what  will  be  at  the  end.”  5  The  prophets, 
His  messengers,  could  thus  foretell  His  will.  They  perceive 
Him  as  the  One  who  “created  the  smith  that  brought  forth 
the  weapon  for  its  work,  and  created  the  master  who  uses  it 
for  destruction.”6  However  the  foe  may  rage,  he  is  but 

1  Jer.  X,  2.  See  art.  Divination,  in  J.  E. ;  Diet.  Bible;  Enc.  R.  and  Eth. 

2  See  Lev.  XVI,  8  f. ;  Num.  XXVI,  56 ;  Josh.  XVIII-XIX ;  Prov. 
XVIII,  18. 

3  Ex.  XVIII,  30;  I  Sam.  see  LXX;  XIV,  41. 

4  Ex.  XXXIII,  32;  Ps.  LVI,  9;  CXXXIX,  16;  comp.,  however,  the 
Babylonian  “tables  of  destinies.” 

5  Isa.  XL,  21 ;  XLI,  4,  22  f. ;  Amos  III,  7. 


6  Isa.  LIV,  16. 


THE  MORAL  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD  169 


“the  scourge  in  the  hand  of  God,”  like  “the  axe  in  the 
hand  of  him  who  fells  the  tree.”  1  No  device  of  men  or 
nations  can  withstand  His  will,  for  He  turns  all  their  doings 
to  some  good  purpose  and  transforms  every  curse  into  a 
blessing.2 

3.  Naturally  this  truth  was  first  accepted  in  limited  form, 
in  the  life  of  certain  individuals.  The  history  of  Joseph  and 
of  King  David  were  used  as  illustrations  to  show  how  God 
protects  His  own.  The  experiences  of  the  people  confirmed 
this  belief  and  expanded  it  to  apply  to  the  nation.  The 
wanderings  of  Israel  through  the  wilderness  and  its  entrance 
to  the  promised  land  were  regarded  as  God’s  work  for  His 
chosen  people.  The  prophets  looked  still  further  and  saw 
the  destinies  of  all  nations,  entering  the  foreground  of  history 
one  by  one,  as  the  sign  of  divine  Providence,  so  that  finally 
the  entire  history  of  mankind  became  a  great  plan  of  divine 
salvation,  centered  upon  the  truth  intrusted  to  Israel. 

Beside  this  conception  of  general  Providence  ruling  in  his¬ 
tory,  the  idea  of  special  Providence  arose  in  response  to  human 
longing.  The  belief  in  Providence  developed  to  a  full  con¬ 
ception  of  care  for  the  world  at  large  and  for  each  individual 
in  his  peculiar  destiny,  a  conviction  that  divine  Providence 
is  concerned  with  the  welfare  of  each  individual,  and  that  the 
joyous  or  bitter  lot  of  each  man  forms  a  link  in  the  moral 
government  of  the  world.  The  first  clear  statement  of  this 
comes  from  the  prophet  Jeremiah  in  his  wrestling  and  sighing : 
“I  know,  O  Lord,  that  the  way  of  man  is  not  in  himself,  it  is 
not  in  man  that  walketh  to  direct  his  steps.”  3  Special  Provi¬ 
dence  is  discussed  still  more  vividly  and  definitely  in  the  book 
of  Job.  Later  on  it  becomes  a  specific  Pharisaic  doctrine, 
“Everything  is  foreseen.”  4  “No  man  suffers  so  much  as  the 
injury  of  a  finger  unless  it  has  been  decreed  in  heaven.”  5  A 

1  Isa.  X,  5,  15.  2  Isa.  VIII,  11 ;  Ps.  II,  2  f. ;  Deut.  XXIII,  6. 

3  Jer.  X,  33.  4  Aboth  III,  15.  5  Hul.  7  a. 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


170 

divine  preordination  decides  a  man’s  choice  of  his  wife  1  and 
every  other  important  step  of  his  life. 

4.  This  theory  of  predestination,  however,  presents  a  grave 
difficulty  when  we  consider  it  in  relation  to  man’s  morality 
with  its  implication  of  self-determination.  While  this  ques¬ 
tion  of  free  will  is  treated  fully  in  another  connection,2  we 
may  anticipate  the  thought  at  this  point.  The  Jewish  con¬ 
ception  of  divine  predestination  makes  as  much  allowance  as 
possible  for  the  moral  freedom  of  man.  This  is  shown  in 
Talmudic  sayings,  such  as  “  Everything  is  within  the  power  of 
God  except  the  fear  of  God,”  3  or  “  Repentance,  prayer,  and 
charity  avert  the  evil  decree.”  4  Thus  Maimonides  expressly 
states  in  his  Code  that  the  belief  in  predestination  cannot  be 
allowed  to  influence  one’s  moral  or  religious  character.  A 
man  can  decide  by  his  own  volition  whether  he  shall  become 
as  just  as  Moses  or  as  wicked  as  Jeroboam.5 

5.  The  service  of  the  New  Year  brings  out  significantly 
the  Jewish  harmonization  between  the  ideas  of  God’s  fore¬ 
knowledge  and  man’s  moral  freedom.  This  festival,  in  the 
Bible  called  the  Festival  of  the  Blowing  of  the  Shofar,  was 
transformed  under  Babylonian  influence  into  the  Day  of 
Divine  Judgment.  But  it  is  still  in  marked  contrast  to  the 
Babylonian  New  Year’s  Day,  when  the  gods  were  supposed 
to  go  to  the  House  of  the  Tablets  of  Destiny  in  the  deep  to 
hear  the  decisions  of  fate.6  The  Jewish  sages  taught  that  on 
this  day  God,  the  Judge  of  the  world,  pronounces  the  destinies 
of  men  and  nations  according  to  their  deserts.  They  thus 
replaced  the  heathen  idea  of  blind  fate  by  that  of  eternal 
justice  as  the  formative  power  of  life.  Then,  moved  by  a 
desire  to  mitigate  the  rigor  of  stern  justice  for  the  frail  and 
failing  mortal,  they  included  also  God’s  long-suffering  and 

1  Gen.  XXIV,  50;  M.  K.  18  b.  2  Ch.  XXXIV.  3  Ber.  33  b. 

4  R.  h.  Sh.  17  b;  New  Year’s  liturgy.  5  H.  Teshnbah ,  V,  1-2. 

6  See,  on  the  Zagmuk  festival,  Zimmern,  K.  A.  T.,  p.  514  f. 


THE  MORAL  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD  171 


mercy.  These  attributes  are  thus  supposed  to  intercede,  so 
that  the  final  decision  is  left  in  suspense  until  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  great  day  of  pardon.  Some  Tannaitic 
teachers  1  find  it  more  in  accord  with  their  view  of  God 
to  say  that  He  judges  man  every  day,  and  even  every 
hour. 

Of  course,  the  philosophic  mind  can  take  this  whole  view¬ 
point  in  a  figurative  sense  alone.  All  the  more  must  we  rec¬ 
ognize  that  this  sublime  religious  thought  of  God  liberates 
morality  from  the  various  limitations  of  the  ancient  pagan 
conception  of  Deity  and  the  more  recent  metaphysical  view. 
In  place  of  these  it  asserts  that  there  is  a  moral  government 
of  the  world,  which  must  be  imitated  in  the  moral  and  religious 
consciousness  of  the  individual. 

6.  The  belief  in  a  moral  government  of  the  world  answers 
another  question  which  the  medieval  Jewish  philosophers 
and  their  Mohammedan  predecessors  endeavored  to  solve, 
but  without  satisfying  the  religious  sentiment,  the  chief  con¬ 
cern  of  theology.  Some  of  them  maintain  that  God’s  fore¬ 
knowledge  does  not  determine  human  deeds.2  Maimonides 
and  his  school,  however,  say  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
comprehend  the  knowledge  and  power  of  God,  and  that  there¬ 
fore  such  a  question  is  outside  the  sphere  of  human  knowl¬ 
edge.  “Know  that,  just  as  God  has  made  the  elements  of 
fire  and  air  to  rise  upwards  and  water  and  earth  to  sink  down¬ 
ward,  so  has  He  made  man  a  free,  self-determining  being, 
who  acts  of  his  own  volition.”  3  The  Mohammedans  would 
often  give  up  human  freedom  rather  than  the  omniscience 
and  all-determining  power  of  God ;  but  the  Jewish  thinkers, 

1  Tos.  R.  h.  Sh.  I,  13 ;  R.  h.  Sh.  16  a. 

2  Saadia  :  Emunoth ,  IV,  7;  Bahya:  Hoboth  ha  Lebaboth,  III,  8;  IV,  3. 

3  H.  Teshubah  V ;  Moreh,  I,  23 ;  III,  16-19 ;  comp.  Cuzari,  V,  20-21 ;  Albo  : 
Ikkarim,  IV,  1-11;  Gersonides:  Milhamoth,  III,  2;  VI,  1-18;  Isaac  ben  She- 
sheth:  Responsa,  119;  Lipman  Heller  to  Aboth  III,  15.  See  Joel:-  Levi  ben 
Gerson,  p.  56. 


172 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


significantly,  with  only  the  possible  exception  of  Crescas,1 
laid  stress  upon  the  divine  nature  which  man  attains  through 
moral  freedom,  even  at  the  risk  of  limiting  the  omniscience  of 
God. 

7.  The  philosophers  failed,  however,  to  emphasize  suffi¬ 
ciently  a  point  of  highest  importance  for  religion,  God’s 
paternal  care  for  all  His  creatures.  Indeed,  God  ceases  to  be 
God,  if  He  has  not  included  our  every  step  in  His  plan  of 
creation,  thus  surrounding  us  with  paternal  love  and  tender 
care.  Instead  of  the  three  blind  fates  of  heathendom  who  spin 
and  cut  the  threads  of  destiny  without  even  knowing  why, 
the  divine  Father  himself  sits  at  the  loom  of  time  and  appor¬ 
tions  the  lot  of  men  according  to  His  own  wisdom  and  good¬ 
ness.  Such  a  belief  in  divine  Providence  is  ingrained  in  the 
soul,  and  reasoning  alone  will  not  suffice  to  attain  it.  There¬ 
fore  even  such  great  thinkers  as  Maimonides  and  Gersonides 
go  astray  as  religious  teachers  when  they  follow  Aristotelian 
principles  in  this  very  intimate  matter.  They  assume  a 
general  Providence  aiming  for  the  preservation  of  the  species, 
but  include  a  special  Providence  only  so  far  as  the  recipient 
of  it  is  endowed  with  reason  and  has  thus  approached  the 
divine  Intellect.  A  Providence  of  this  type,  the  result  of 
human  reasoning,  is  a  mere  illusion,  as  the  pious  thinker, 
Hasdai  Crescas,  clearly  shows.2  For  the  man  who  prays  to 
God  in  anxiety  or  distress  this  bears  nothing  but  dis¬ 
appointment. 

The  Aristotelian  conception  of  the  world  has  this  great 
truth,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  chance,  that  everything 
is  foreseen  and  provided  by  the  divine  wisdom.  But  religion 
must  hold  that  the  individual  is  an  object  of  care  by  God, 
that  “not  a  sparrow  falls  into  the  net  without  God’s  will,”3 

1  See  Or  Adonai,  II,  3 ;  comp.  Joel :  Hasdai  Crescas ,  41-49,  54-55 ;  Neumark : 
“ Crescas  and  Spinoza ,”  in  Y.  B.  C.  C.  A.  R.,  1908,  vol.  XVIII,  p.  277-319. 

2  Or  Adonai,  III,  24.  3  Gen.  R.  LXXIX,  16;  comp.  Matt.  X,  29. 


THE  MORAL  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD  173 


that  “  every  hair  on  the  head  of  man  is  counted  and  cared  for 
in  the  heavenly  order,”  1  and  that  the  most  insignificant 
thing  serves  its  purpose  under  the  guidance  of  an  all-wise 
God.  We  use  figurative  expressions  for  the  divine  care, 
because  we  cannot  grasp  it  entirely  or  literally. 

8.  The  Bible  in  the  Song  of  Moses  compares  divine  Provi¬ 
dence  to  the  eagle  spreading  her  protecting  wings  over  her 
young  and  bearing  them  aloft,  or  urging  them  to  soar  along.2 
The  rabbis  elaborate  this  by  referring  to  the  twofold  care 
which  the  eagle  thus  bestows,  as  she  watches  over  those  who 
are  still  tender  and  helpless,  shielding  them  from  the  arrows 
below  by  bearing  them  on  her  wings,  but  inspiring  the  maturer 
and  stronger  ones  to  fly  by  her  side.3  In  the  same  way  Provi¬ 
dence  trains  both  individuals  and  generations  for  their  al¬ 
lotted  task.  A  little  child  requires  incessant  care  on  the  part 
of  its  mother,  until  it  has  learned  how  to  eat,  walk,  speak, 
and  to  decide  for  itself,  but  the  wise  parent  gradually  with¬ 
draws  his  guiding  hand  so  that  the  growing  child  may  learn 
self-reliance  and  self-respect.  The  divine  Father  trains  man 
thus  through  the  childhood  of  humanity.  But  no  sooner  does 
the  divine  spirit  in  man  awaken  to  self-consciousness  than  he 
is  thrown  on  his  own  resources  to  become  the  master  of  his 
own  destiny.  The  divine  power  which,  in  the  earlier  stages, 
had  worked  for  man,  now  works  with  him  and  within  him. 
In  the  rabbinic  phrase,  he  is  now  ready  to  be  a  “co-worker 
with  God  in  the  work  of  creation.”  4  Only  at  those  grave 
moments  when  his  own  powers  fail  him,  he  still  feels  in  the 
humility  of  faith  that  his  ancient  God  is  still  near,  “a  very 
present  help  in  trouble,”  and  that  “the  Guardian  of  Israel 
neither  slumbereth  nor  sleepeth.”  5 

9.  At  this  point  philosophy  and  religion  part  company. 

1  B.  B.  16  a;  comp.  Matt.  X,  30;  Luke  XII,  7. 

2  Deut.  XXXII,  11.  3  Mek.  Yithro  2 ;  Sifre  ad  loc. 

4  Shab.  1 19  b.  6  Ps.  XL VI,  2 ;  CXXI,  4. 


174 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Philosophy  cannot  tolerate  the  removal  of  the  dividing  line 
between  the  transcendent  God  and  finite  man.  Hence  the 
relation  of  man’s  free  will  and  divine  foresight  cannot  be 
solved  by  any  process  of  reasoning.  But  when  religion  pro¬ 
claims  a  moral  government  of  the  world,  then  man,  with  his 
moral  and  spiritual  aims,  attains  a  place  in  Creation  akin 
to  the  Creator.  Of  course,  so  long  as  he  is  mentally  a  child 
and  has  no  clear  purpose,  Providence  acts  for  him  as  it  does 
for  the  animal  with  its  marvelous  instinct.  Through  His 
chosen  messengers  God  gives  the  people  bread  and  water, 
freedom  and  victory,  instruction  and  law.  The  wondrous 
tales  describing  the  divine  protection  of  Israel  in  its  early  life 
may  strike  us  as  out  of  harmony  with  the  laws  of  nature, 
but  they  are  true  portrayals  of  the  experience  of  the  people. 
Whatever  happened  for  their  good  in  those  days  had  to  be 
the  work  of  God ;  they  had  not  yet  wakened  to  the  power 
hidden  in  their  own  soul.  Their  heroes  felt  themselves  to  be 
divine  instruments,  roused  by  His  spirit  to  perform  mighty 
deeds  or  to  behold  prophetic  visions.  It  is  God  who  battles 
through  them.  It  is  God  who  speaks  through  them.  Both 
their  moral  and  spiritual  guidance  works  from  without  and 
above.  At  this  stage  of  life  autonomy  is  neither  felt  nor 
desired.  When  man  awakens  to  moral  self-consciousness  and 
maturity,  this  inner  change  impresses  him  as  an  outer  one ; 
the  change  in  him  is  interpreted  as  a  change  in  God.  He  feels 
that  God  has  withdrawn  behind  His  eternal  laws  of  nature 
and  morality  which  work  without  direct  interference,  and  in 
his  new  sense  of  independence  he  thinks  that  he  can  dispense 
with  the  divine  protection  and  forethought.  As  if  mortal 
man  can  ever  dispense  with  that  Power  which  has  endowed 
him  with  his  capacity  for  worthy  accomplishment !  Thus  in 
times  of  danger  and  distress  man  turns  to  God  for  help ; 
thus  at  every  great  turning  point  in  the  life  of  an  individual 
or  nation  the  idea  of  an  all-wise  Providence  imbues  him  with 


THE  MORAL  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  WORLD  175 


new  hope  and  new  security.  And  in  all  these  cases  the  great 
lesson  of  providential  direction  is  typified  in  the  history  of 
Israel  as  related  in  the  Bible. 

10.  The  idea  of  Providence,  indeed,  belongs  also  to  certain 
pagan  philosophers,  who  observed  the  great  purposes  of 
nature  which  the  single  creature  and  the  species  are  both  to 
serve.  The  Stoics  in  particular  made  a  study  of  teleology, 
the  system  of  purposive  ends  in  nature.  Philo  adopted  much 
from  them  in  his  treatise  on  Providence.  Later  the  popular 
philosophic  group  among  the  Mohammedans,  the  so-called 
“  Brothers  of  Purity,”  based  their  doctrines  of  God  and  His 
relation  to  the  world  on  a  teleological  view  of  nature.  In 
fact,  the  Jewish  philosopher  and  moralist  Bahya  ben  Pakudah 
has  embodied  many  of  their  ideas  in  his  “Duties  of  the 
Heart.”  1 

Jewish  folklore  —  preserved  in  rabbinic  literature  —  has 
also  attempted  a  popular  explanation  of  the  obscure  ways  of 
Providence,  in  strange  events  of  nature  as  well  as  the  great 
enigmas  of  human  destiny.  Thus  the  flight  of  David  from 
Saul  affords  the  lesson  of  the  good  purpose  which  may  be 
served  by  so  insignificant  a  thing  as  a  spider,  or  by  so  dreadful 
a  state  as  insanity.2  Vast  numbers  of  the  Jewish  legends 
and  fables  deal  with  adversities  which  are  turned  into  ulti¬ 
mate  good  by  the  working  of  an  all-wise  Providence.3 

1  See  David  Kaufmann  :  “Theol.  d.  B.  b.  Pakudah”  p.  240. 

2  Mid.  Teh.  to  Ps.  XXXIV ;  L.  Ginzberg,  Legends  of  the  Jews,  IV,  89-90  ; 
Alphabet  of  Ben  Sira. 

3  Comp.  Maasehhbuch;  Tendlau:  Sagen  d.jued.  Vorzeit. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 


God  and  the  Existence  of  Evil 

i.  A  leading  objection  to  the  belief  in  divine  Providence 
is  the  existence  in  this  world  of  physical  and  moral  evil.  All 
living  creatures  are  exposed  to  the  influence  of  evil,  according 
to  their  physical  or  moral  constitutions  and  the  peculiar  con¬ 
ditions  of  their  existence.  Heathenism  accounts  for  the 
powers  of  darkness,  pain  and  death  by  assuming  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  forces  hostile  to  the  heavenly  powers  of  light  and  life, 
or  of  a  primitive  principle  of  evil,  the  counterpart  of  the 
divine  beings.  But  to  those  who  believe  in  an  almighty  and 
all-benign  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  universe,  the  question 
remains :  Why  do  life  and  the  love  of  life  encounter  so  many 
hindrances?  Why  does  God’s  world  contain  so  much  pain 
and  bitterness,  so  much  passion  and  sin  ?  Should  not  Provi¬ 
dence  have  averted  such  things?  The  answer  of  Judaism 
has  already  been  stated  here,  but  we  need  further  elaboration 
of  the  theme  that  there  is  no  evil  before  God,  since  a  good 
purpose  is  served  even  by  that  which  appears  bad.  In  the 
life  of  the  human  body  pleasure  and  pain,  the  impetus  to  life 
and  its  restraint  and  inhibition  form  a  necessary  contrast, 
making  for  health;  so,  in  the  moral  order  of  the  universe, 
each  being  who  battles  with  evil  receives  new  strength  for  the 
unfolding  of  the  good.  The  principle  of  holiness,  which  cul¬ 
minates  in  Israel’s  holy  God,  transforms  and  ennobles  every 
evil.  As  the  Midrash  explains,  referring  to  Deut.  XI,  26 : 
“If  thou  but  seest  that  both  good  and  evil  are  placed  in  thy 

176 


GOD  AND  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  EVIL  177 

hand,  no  evil  will  come  to  thee  from  above,  since  thou  knowest 
how  to  turn  it  into  good.”  1 

2.  The  conception  of  evil  passed  through  a  development 
parallel  with  that  of  the  related  conceptions  which  we  have 
just  reviewed.  At  first  every  misfortune  was  considered  to 
be  inflicted  by  divine  wrath  as  a  punishment  for  human  mis¬ 
deeds.  Nations  and  individuals  were  thought  to  suffer  for 
some  special  moral  cause ;  through  suffering  they  were 
punished  for  past  wrong,  warned  against  its  repetition  in  the 
future,  and  urged  to  repentance  and  improvement  of  their 
conduct.  Even  death,  the  fate  of  all  living  creatures,  was 
regarded  as  a  punishment  which  the  first  pair  of  human  beings 
brought  upon  all  their  descendants  through  their  transgres¬ 
sion  of  the  divine  command.  The  Talmudic  sages  clung  to  the 
view  of  the  Paradise  legend  in  the  Bible,  when  they  held  that 
every  death  is  due  to  some  sin  committed  by  the  individual.2 

This  view,  which  was  shared  by  paganism,  was  accom¬ 
panied  by  a  higher  conception,  gradually  growing  in  the 
thinking  mind.  As  a  father  does  not  punish  his  child  in 
anger,  but  in  order  to  improve  his  conduct,  so  God  chastens 
man  in  order  to  purify  his  moral  nature.  Good  fortune  tends 
to  harden  the  heart ;  adversity  often  softens  and  sweetens  it. 
In  the  crucible  of  suffering  the  gold  of  the  human  soul  is  puri¬ 
fied  from  the  dross.  The  evil  strokes  of  destiny  come  upon 
the  righteous,  not  because  he  deserves  them,  but  because  his 
divine  Friend  is  raising  him  to  still  higher  tests  of  virtue. 
This  standpoint,  never  reached  even  by  the  pious  sufferer 
Job,  is  attained  by  rabbinic  Judaism  when  it  calls  the  visita¬ 
tions  of  the  righteous  “trials  of  the  divine  love.”  3  Thus  evil, 
both  physical  and  spiritual,  receives  its  true  valuation  in  the 
divine  economy.  Evil  exists  only  to  be  overcome  by  the 

1  See  Gen.  R.  IX,  5,  10,  11 ;  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  309-318;  D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  II, 
343-384. 

2  Shab.  55  a.  3  Ber.  5  a,  after  Deut.  VIII,  5 ;  Prov.  Ill,  12. 

N 


178 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


good.  In  His  paternal  goodness  God  uses  it  to  educate  His 
children  for  a  place  in  His  kingdom. 

3.  According  to  the  direct  words  of  Scripture  good  and 
evil,  light  and  darkness,  emanate  alike  from  the  Creator. 
This  is  accentuated  by  the  great  seer  of  the  Exile,1  who  pro¬ 
tests  against  the  Persian  belief  in  a  creative  principle  of  good 
and  a  destructive  principle  of  evil.  The  rabbis,  however, 
ascribe  the  origin  of  evil  to  man ;  they  take  as  a  negation 
rather  than  a  question  the  verse  in  Lam.  Ill,  38:  “Do  not 
evil  and  good  come  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Most  High?” 
Thus  they  refer  this  to  the  words  of  Deuteronomy,  “Behold, 
I  have  set  before  you  this  day  life  and  good,  death  and  evil; 
choose  thou  life  !”  2 

Such  medieval  thinkers  as  Abraham  Ibn  Daud  and  Mai- 
monides  did  not  ascribe  to  evil  any  reality  at  all.3  Evil  to 
them  is  the  negation  of  good,  just  as  darkness  is  the  negation 
of  light,  or  poverty  of  riches.  As  evil  exists  only  for  man, 
man  can  overcome  it  by  himself.  Before  God  it  has  no  es¬ 
sential  existence.  Unfortunately,  such  metaphysics  does  not 
equip  man  with  strength  and  courage  to  cope  with  either  pain 
or  sin.  The  same  lack  is  evident  in  that  modern  form  of 
pseudo-science  which  poses  as  a  religion,  Christian  Science, 
which  has  made  propaganda  so  widely  among  both  Jews  and 
non-Jews.  Christian  Science  declares  pain,  sickness,  and  all 
evil  to  be  merely  the  “error  of  mortal  mind/’  which  can  all 
be  dispelled  by  faith;  such  a  view  neither  strengthens  the 
soul  for  its  real  struggles  nor  convinces  the  mind  by  an  appeal 
to  facts.4 

4.  Frail  mortals  as  we  are,  we  need  the  help  of  the  living 
God.  Thus  only  can  we  overcome  physical  evil,  knowing 

1  Isa.  XLV,  7.  2  Deut.  XI,  27 ;  see  the  Midrash  ad  loc. 

3  Emunah  Ramah,  ed.  Weil,  93  f. ;  Moreh,  III,  10. 

4  See  M.  Lefkovitz,  “The  Attitude  of  Judaism  to  Christian  Science,”  in 
Y.  B.  C.  C.  A.  R.  XXII,  300-318. 


GOD  AND  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  EVIL 


179 


that  He  bears  with  us,  feels  with  us,  and  transforms  it  finally 
into  good.  We  need  it  also  to  overcome  moral  evil,  in  the 
consciousness  that  He  has  compassion  upon  the  repentant 
sinner  and  gives  him  courage  to  follow  the  right  path.  The 
modern  philosophers  of  pessimism  had  the  correct  feeling  in 
adopting  the  Hindu  conception,  and  emphasizing  the  pain 
and  misery  of  existence,  repeating  Job’s  ancient  plaint  over 
the  hard  destiny  of  mankind.  The  shallow  optimism  of  the 
age  would  rather  conceal  the  dark  side  of  life  and  indulge  in 
outbursts  of  self-sufficiency.  Yet  if  we  measure  it  only  by  a 
physical  yardstick,  life  cannot  be  called  a  boon.  Against 
shallow  optimism  we  have  the  testimony  of  every  thorn  and 
sting,  every  poisonous  breath  and  every  destructive  element  in 
nature’s  household,  as  well  as  all  vice  and  evil  in  the  world  of 
man.  The  world  does  not  appear  good,  unless  we  measure  it 
by  the  ideal  of  divine  holiness.  If  God  is  the  Father  watch¬ 
ing  over  the  welfare  of  every  mortal,  all  things  are  good,  be¬ 
cause  all  serve  a  good  purpose  in  His  eternal  plan.  Every 
hindrance  or  pressure  engenders  new  power ;  every  sting  acts 
as  a  spur  to  higher  things.  Short-sighted  and  short-lived  as 
is  man,  he  forgets  too  easily  that  in  the  sight  of  God  “a 
thousand  years  are  as  a  single  day,”  world-epochs  like 
“ watches  in  the  night,”  and  that  the  mills  of  divine  justice 
grind  on,  “slowly  but  exceeding  small.”  But  one  belief  illu¬ 
mines  the  darkness  of  destiny,  and  that  is  that  God  stands  ever 
at  the  helm,  steering  through  every  storm  and  tempest  toward 
His  sublime  goal.  In  the  moral  striving  of  man  we  can  but 
realize  that  our  every  victory  contributes  toward  the  majestic 
work  of  God.1 

1  See  Morris  Joseph,  1.  c.,  p.  108,  127  ff. ;  C.  Seligman,  1.  c.,  50-68. 


CHAPTER  XXX 


God  and  the  Angels 

i.  Judaism  insists  with  unrelenting  severity  on  the  abso¬ 
lute  unity  and  incomparability  of  God,  so  that  no  other 
being  can  be  placed  beside  Him.  Consequently,  every  men¬ 
tion  of  divine  beings  ( Elohim  or  B’ne  Elohim )  in  either  the 
Bible  or  post-Biblical  literature  refers  to  subordinate  beings 
only.  These  spirits  constitute  the  celestial  court  for  the 
King  of  the  World.1  All  the  forces  of  the  universe  are  His 
servants,  fulfilling  His  commands.  Hence  both  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  terms  for  angel,  Malak  and  angelos ,  mean  “messen¬ 
ger.”  These  beings  derive  their  existence  from  God ;  some 
of  them  are  merely  temporary,  so  that  without  Him  they 
dissolve  into  nothing.  Although  Scripture  uses  the  terms, 
“God  of  gods”  and  “King  of  kings,”  still  we  cannot  attribute 
any  independent  existence  to  subordinate  divine  beings.  In 
fact,  Maimonides  in  his  sixth  article  of  faith  holds  that  wor¬ 
ship  of  such  beings  is  prohibited  as  idolatry  by  the  second 
commandment.2  Thus  the  unity  of  God  lifts  Him  above 
comparison  with  any  other  divine  being.  This  is  most  em¬ 
phatically  expressed  in  Deuteronomy:  “Know  this  day,  and 
lay  it  to  thy  heart,  that  the  Lord  He  is  God  in  heaven  above, 
and  upon  the  earth  beneath;  there  is  none  else,”  3  and  “See 

1  Gen.  VI,  2 ;  Job  I,  6 ;  II,  i ;  XXXIII,  7 ;  Gen.  XXXII,  29 ;  XXXIII, 
10;  Jud.  XIII,  22;  Ps.  VIII,  6. 

2  Comp.  Mek.  Yithro  7  through  10;  Hul.  40;  Tos.  Hul.  II,  18;  Ab.  Z. 
42  b;  Maimonides  to  Sanh.  X;  Targ.  Y.  to  Ex.  XX,  3. 

3  Deut.  IV,  39. 

180 


v « 


GOD  AND  THE  ANGELS 


181 


now  that  I,  even  I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no  god  with  Me ;  I 
kill  and  make  alive ;  I  have  wounded  and  I  heal,  and  there  is 
none  that  can  deliver  out  of  My  hand.”  1  The  same  attitude 
is  found  in  Isaiah:  “I  am  the  Lord  that  maketh  all  things, 
that  stretched  forth  the  heavens  alone,  that  spread  abroad 
the  earth  by  Myself.”  “I  am  the  Lord  and  there  is  none 
else ;  beside  Me  there  is  no  god.”  2  Such  conceptions  allow 
no  place  for  angels  or  spirits. 

2.  It  was  certainly  not  easy  for  prophet,  lawgiver,  or  sage 
to  dispel  the  popular  belief  in  divine  beings  or  powers,  which 
primitive  Judaism  shared  with  other  ancient  faiths.  No 
sharp  line  was  drawn  at  first  between  God  and  His  accom¬ 
panying  angels,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  story  of  the  angels 
who  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  the  similar  incidents  of 
Hagar  and  Jacob.3  The  varying  application  of  the  term 
Elohim  to  God  and  to  the  angels  or  gods  is  proof  enough 
of  the  priority  of  polytheism,  even  in  Judaism.  The  trees  or 
springs,  formerly  seats  of  the  ancient  deities,  spirits,  or  de¬ 
mons,  were  now  the  places  for  the  appearance  of  angels, 
shorn  of  their  independence,  looking  like  fiery  or  shining  human 
beings.  Popular  belief,  however,  perpetuated  mythological 
elements,  ascribing  to  the  angels  higher  wisdom  and  some¬ 
times  sensuality  as  well.  Such  a  case  is  the  fragment  pre¬ 
served  in  Genesis  telling  of  the  union  of  sons  of  God  to  the 
daughters  of  men,  causing  the  generation  of  giants.4  Ob¬ 
viously  the  old  Babylonian  “mountain  of  the  gods,”  with  its 
food  for  the  gods,  became  in  the  Paradise  legend  the  garden 
of  Eden,  the  seat  of  God ;  5  and  the  Psalmist  still  speaks  of 
the  “ angels’  food,”  which  appeared  as  manna  in  the  wilderness.6 
On  the  whole,  the  sacred  writers  were  most  eager  to  allot  to 
the  angels  a  very  subordinate  position  in  the  divine  household. 


1  Deut.  XXXII,  39. 

3  Gen.  XVIII  and  XVII,  n,  13. 
6  Comp.  Ezek.  XXVIII,  13  f. 


2  Isa.  XLIV,  24;  XL,  5. 
4  Gen.  VI,  1  f. 

6  Ps.  LXXVIII,  25. 


182 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


They  figure  usually  as  hosts  of  beings,  numbered  by  myriads, 
wrapped  in  light  or  in  fleeting  clouds.  They  surround  the 
throne  or  chariot  of  God ;  they  comprise  His  heavenly  court 
or  council ;  they  sing  His  praise  and  obey  His  call. 

Scripture  is  quite  silent  about  the  creation  of  these  angelic 
beings,  as  on  most  purely  speculative  questions.  At  the 
very  beginning  of  the  world  God  consults  them  when  He  is 
to  create  man  after  the  image  of  the  celestial  beings.  For 
this  is  the  original  meaning  of  Elohim  in  Gen.  I,  26  and  27 
and  V,  1  :  “Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  like¬ 
ness”  ;  “And  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image 
of  godly  beings  He  created  him.”  This  view  is  echoed  in 
Psalm  VIII,  verse  6:  “Thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower 
than  godly  beings.”  In  Job  XXXVIII,  7,  both  the  morning 
stars  and  the  sons  of  God,  or  angels,  “shout  together  in  joy  ” 
when  the  Lord  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth.1 

3.  In  Biblical  times  —  which  does  not  include  the  book  of 
Daniel,  a  work  of  the  Maccabean  time  —  the  angels  and 
demons  were  not  invested  with  proper  names  or  special  func¬ 
tions.  The  Biblical  system  does  not  even  distinguish  clearly 
between  good  and  evil  spirits.  The  goat-like  demons  of  the 
field  popularly  worshiped  were  merely  survivals  of  pagan 
superstitions.2 

In  general  the  angels  carry  out  good  or  evil  designs  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  commands  from  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  They  are 
sent  forth  to  destroy  Sodom,  to  save  Lot,  and  to  bring  Abra¬ 
ham  the  good  tidings  of  the  birth  of  a  son.3  On  one  occasion 
the  host  of  spirits  protect  the  people  of  God  ;  on  another  they 
annihilate  hostile  powers  by  pestilence  and  plagues.4  At  one 
time  a  multitude  appear,  led  by  a  celestial  chieftain ;  at  an- 

1  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  318-333;  Davidson,  1.  c.,  289-300;  J.  E.,  art.  Angel- 
ology;  Enc.  Rel.  and  Eth.  IV,  594-601,  art.  Demons. 

2  Lev.  XVII,  7 ;  Deut.  XXXII,  17 ;  Isa.  XXXIV,  14.  3  Gen.  XVIII. 

4  Ex.  XXIII,  20;  II  Sam.  XXIV,  16;  II  Kings  XIX,  35  et  al.  See  J.  E., 
art.  Angelology. 


GOD  AND  THE  ANGELS 


I  S3 

other  a  single  angel  performs  the  miracle.  In  any  case  the 
destroying  angel  is  not  a  demon,  but  a  messenger  of  the  divine 
will.  Originally  some  of  these  primitive  forces  were  dreaded 
or  worshiped  by  the  people,  but  all  have  been  transformed 
into  members  of  the  celestial  court  and  called  to  bear  witness 
to  the  dominion  of  the  Omnipotent. 

4.  The  belief  in  angels  served  two  functions  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  monotheism.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  a  stage  in  the 
concentration  of  the  divine  forces,  beginning  with  polytheism, 
continuing  through  belief  in  angels,  and  culminating  in  the 
one  and  only  God  of  heaven  and  earth.  On  the  other  hand, 
certain  sensuous  elements  in  the  vision  of  God  by  the  seers 
had  to  be  removed  in  the  spiritualization  of  God,  and  it  was 
found  easiest  to  transform  these  into  separate  beings,  related 
to  Deity  himself.  Thus  the  fiery  appearance  of  God  to  the 
eye  or  the  voice  which  was  manifested  to  the  ear  were  often 
personified  as  angels  of  God.  This  very  process  made  pos¬ 
sible  the  purification  of  the  God  idea,  as  the  sublime  essence 
of  the  Deity  was  divested  of  physical  and  temporal  elements, 
and  God  was  conceived  more  and  more  as  a  moral  and  spiritual 
personality.  Hence  in  Biblical  passages  the  names  of  God 
and  of  the  angel  frequently  alternate.1  The  latter  is  only  a 
representative  of  the  divine  personality  —  in  Scriptural  terms, 
the  presence  or  “face”  of  God.  Therefore  the  voice  of  the 
angel  is  to  be  obeyed  as  that  of  God  himself,  because  His 
name  is  present  in  His  representative.  A  similar  meaning  be¬ 
came  attached  later  on  to  the  term  Shekinah ,  the  “majesty” 
of  God  as  beheld  in  the  cloud  of  fire.  This  was  spoken  of  in 
place  of  God  that  He  might  not  be  lowered  into  the  earthly 
sphere.  For  further  discussion  of  this  subject,  see  chapter 
XXXII,  “God  and  Intermediary  Powers.”  In  fact,  we  note 
that  the  post-exilic  prophets  all  received  their  revelations,  not 
from  God,  but  through  a  special  angel.2  They  no  longer 
1  Ex.  Ill,  2-4 ;  XXIII,  20-21 ;  Isa.  LXIII,  9.  2  Zech.  I,  9  f. ;  II,  1  f. 


184 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


believed  that  God  might  be  seen  or  heard  by  human  powers, 
and  therefore  their  visions  had  to  be  translated  into  rational 
thoughts  by  a  mediating  angel. 

5.  Persian  influence  gave  Jewish  angelology  and  demon¬ 
ology  a  different  character.  The  two  realms  of  the  Persian 
system  included  vast  hosts  of  beneficent  spirits  under  Ahura- 
Mazda  (Ormuzd)  and  of  demons  under  the  dominion  of  Angro- 
mainyus  (Ahriman).  So  in  Judaism  also  different  orders  of 
angels  arose,  headed  by  archangels  who  bore  special  names. 
The  number  seven  was  adopted  from  the  Persians,  while  both 
names  and  order  were  often  changed.  All  of  them,  however, 
were  allotted  special  functions  in  the  divine  household.  The 
pagan  deities  and  primitive  spirits  which  still  persisted  in 
popular  superstition  were  given  a  new  lease  of  life.  Each  force 
of  nature  was  given  a  guardian  spirit,  just  as  in  nature-wor¬ 
ship  ;  angels  were  appointed  over  fire,  water,  each  herb,  each 
fountain,  and  every  separate  function  of  life.  A  patron  angel 
was  assigned  to  each  of  the  seventy  nations  of  the  world  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  genealogy  of  Noah.1 

Thus  the  celestial  court  grew  in  number  and  in  splendor.  A 
beginning  was  made  with  the  heavenly  chariot-throne  of  Eze¬ 
kiel,  borne  aloft  by  the  four  holy  living  creatures  (the  hayoth ), 
surrounded  by  the  fiery  Cherubim ,  the  winged  Seraphim,  and 
the  many-eyed  Ojanim  (wheels).2  This  was  elaborated  by 
the  addition  of  rows  of  surrounding  angels,  called  “  angels  of 
service,”  headed  by  the  seven  archangels.  Of  these  the  chief 
was  Michael,  the  patron-saint  of  Israel,  and  the  next  Gabriel, 
who  is  sometimes  even  placed  first.  Raphael  and  Uriel  are 
regularly  mentioned,  the  other  three  rarely,  and  not  always 
by  the  same  names.  The  Irin  of  Daniel  —  known  as  “the 
Watchers,”  but  more  precisely  “the  ever-watchful  Ones”  — 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Angelology. 

2  Ezek.  I,  4-24 ;  X,  1-22  ;  Isa.  VI,  2  ;  Dan.  IV,  10  f. ;  VII,  9  f. ;  VIII,  16  f. ; 
X,  13  f. ;  Enoch  XV,  1  f.,  and  elsewhere. 


GOD  AND  THE  ANGELS 


185 

are  another  of  the  ten  classes  of  angels  included.  Below  these 
are  myriads  of  inferior  angels  who  serve  them.  Their  classi¬ 
fication  by  rank  was  a  favorite  theme  of  the  secret  lore  of  the 
Essenes,  partly  preserved  for  us  in  the  apocalyptic  literature 
and  the  liturgy.  The  Essenic  saints  endeavored  to  acquire 
miraculous  powers  through  using  the  names  of  certain  angels, 
and  thus  exorcising  the  evil  spirits. 

This  secret  lore  seems  to  be  patterned  after  the  Zoroastrian 
or  Mazdean  system.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  most  promi¬ 
nent  angelic  figure  is  Metatron,  the  charioteer  of  the  Merkabah 
or  chariot-throne  on  high,  which  is  merely  another  form  of 
Mithras ,  the  Persian  god  of  light,  who  acts  as  charioteer 
for  Ahura  Mazda.1  Two  other  angels  are  mentioned  as 
standing  behind  the  heavenly  throne,  Akathriel ,  the  crown- 
bearer  of  God,”  and  Sandal  phon,  “the  twin  brother” 
=  Synadelphon. 

6.  A  striking  contrast  exists  between  the  simple  habitation 
in  the  sky  depicted  in  the  prophetic  and  Mosaic  books,  and 
the  splendor  of  the  heavenly  spheres  according  to  the  rabbinical 
writings.  The  Oriental  courts  lent  all  their  grandeur  to  the 
majestic  throne  of  God,  on  which  He  was  exalted  above  all 
earthly  things.  The  immense  space  between  was  filled  in  by 
innumerable  gradations  of  beings  leading  up  to  Him.  There 
was  no  longer  a  question  how  far  these  other  beings  shared 
the  nature  of  God ;  His  dominion  was  absolute.  Still  a  new 
question,  not  known  to  the  Bible,  arose,  as  to  when  the  angelic 
world  was  created  and  out  of  what  primordial  element.  At 
first  a  logical  answer  was  given,  that  the  angels  emanated 
from  the  element  of  fire.  Later  the  schoolmen,  trying  to  dis¬ 
pose  of  the  angels  as  possible  peers  or  rivals  of  the  eternal 
God,  ascribed  their  creation  to  the  second  day,  when  the 
heaven  was  made  as  a  vault  over  the  earth,  or  to  the  fifth 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Merkabah,  though  still  doubted  by  Bousset,  1.  c.,  p.  406. 
For  Akathriel  see  Ber.  7  and  J.  E.,  art.  Sandalfon. 


i86 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


day,  when  the  winged  creatures  arose.1  On  the  whole,  the 
rabbis  denied  every  claim  of  the  angels  to  an  independent  or 
an  eternal  existence.  Just  because  they  firmly  believed  in  the 
existence  of  angels  and  even  saw  them  from  time  to  time, 
they  felt  bound  to  declare  their  secondary  rank.  Only  the 
archangels  were  made  from  an  eternal  substance,  while  the 
others  were  continually  being  created  anew  out  of  the  breath 
of  God  or  from  the  “river  of  fire”  which  flowed  around  His 
throne.  Thus  even  the  realm  of  celestial  spirits  was  merged 
into  the  stream  of  universal  life  which  comes  and  goes,  while 
God  was  left  alone  in  matchless  sovereignty,  above  all  the 
fluctuations  of  time. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  rabbis  opposed  the  Essenic  idea  of 
assigning  to  the  angels  an  intermediary  task  between  God  and 
man,  and  deprecated  as  a  pagan  custom  the  worship  or  invo¬ 
cation  of  angels.  “Address  your  prayer  to  the  Master  of  life 
and  not  to  His  servants ;  He  will  hear  you  in  every  trouble,” 
says  R.  Judan.2  Some  of  the  teachers  even  declared  that  any 
godly  son  of  Israel  excels  the  angels  in  power.  It  is  certainly 
significant,  as  David  Neumark  has  pointed  out,  that  the 
Mishnah  eliminates  every  reference  to  the  angels.3 

7.  In  spite  of  this,  none  of  the  medieval  Jewish  philoso¬ 
phers  doubted  the  existence  of  angels.4  Indeed,  there  was  no 
reason  for  them  to  do  so,  as  they  had  managed  to  insert  them 
into  their  philosophic  systems  as  intermediary  beings  leading 
up  to  the  Supreme  Intelligence.  All  that  was  necessary  was 
to  identify  the  angels  of  the  Bible  with  the  “ideas”  of  Plato 
or  the  “rulers  of  the  spheres,”  the  “separate  intelligences” 
of  Aristotle.  By  this  one  step  the  existence  of  angels  as 
cosmic  powers  was  proved  to  be  a  logical  necessity.  The  ten 

1  Jubilees  II,  2  ;  Slav.  Enoch.  XXIX,  3 ;  I,  3 ;  Gen.  R.  Ill,  11. 

2  Yer.  Ber.  IX;  Sanh.  93  a;  Hul.  91  b;  Ned.  32  a;  Gen.  R.  VIII,  XXI; 
Midr.  Teh.  to  Ps.  CIII,  18;  CIV,  1. 

3  Neumark,  1.  c. 


4  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  69-87. 


GOD  AND  THE  ANGELS 


187 

rulers  of  the  spheres  even  corresponded  with  the  ten  orders  of 
angels  in  the  cosmography  of  the  Jewish,  Mohammedan,  and 
Christian  schoolmen.  The  only  difference  between  the  Aris¬ 
totelian  and  the  rabbinical  views  was  that  the  former  held 
the  cosmic  powers  to  be  eternal;  the  latter,  that  they  were 
created. 

In  both  Biblical  and  rabbinical  literature  the  angels  are 
usually  conceived  of  as  purely  spiritual  powers  superior  to  man. 
Maimonides,  however,  following  his  rationalistic  method,  de¬ 
clared  them  to  be  simply  products  of  the  imagination,  the 
hypostases  of  figurative  expressions  which  were  not  meant 
to  be  taken  literally.  To  him  every  force  and  element  of 
nature  is  an  angel  or  messenger  of  God.  In  this  way  the 
entire  angelology  of  the  Bible,  including  even  Ezekiel’s  vision 
of  the  heavenly  chariot  (the  Merkabah),  in  becoming  a  part 
of  the  Maimonidean  system  turns  into  natural  philosophy 
pure  and  simple.1  Of  course,  Saadia,  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  and  Ga- 
birol  do  not  share  this  rationalistic  view.  To  them  the  angels 
are  either  cosmic  powers  of  an  ethereal  substance,  endowed 
with  everlasting  life,  or  living  beings  created  by  God  for 
special  purposes.2 

The  later  Cabbalistic  lore  extended  the  realm  of  the  celestial 
spirits  still  more,  creating  new  names  of  angels  for  its  mystical 
system  and  its  magical  practices.  Yet  in  this  magic  it  sub¬ 
ordinated  the  angels  to  man.  In  fact,  it  followed  Saadia 
largely  in  this,  making  man  the  center  and  pinnacle  of  the 
work  of  creation,  in  fact,  the  very  mirror  of  the  Creator.3 

8.  For  our  modern  viewpoint  the  existence  of  angels  is  a 
question  of  psychology  rather  than  of  theology.  The  old 
Babylonian  world  has  vanished,  with  its  heaven  as  the  dwell- 

1  Yesode  ha  Torah ,  II,  4-9 ;  Moreh ,  I,  43  ;  H,  3-7,  41 ;  III,  13 ;  Husik,  1.  c., 
303  f. 

2  Emunolh ,  IV,  1 ;  VI,  2  ;  Hohoth  ha  Lebaboth,  I,  6 ;  Cuzari,  IV,  3  ;  Emunah 
Raniah,  IV,  2 ;  VI,  1 ;  Ikkarim,  II,  28,  31. 

3  Zohar,  III,  68;  Joel :  Religions  philosophic  dcs  Zohar ,  278  f. 


i88 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


ing  place  of  God,  its  earth  for  man,  and  its  nether  world  for 
the  shades  and  demons.  The  world  in  which  we  live  knows 
no  above  or  beneath,  no  heaven  or  hell,  no  host  of  good  and 
evil  spirits  moving  about  to  help  or  hurt  man.  It  sees  matter 
and  energy  working  everywhere  after  the  same  immutable 
laws  through  an  infinitude  of  space  and  time,  a  universe  ever 
evolving  new  orbs  of  light,  engendering  and  transforming 
worlds  without  number  and  without  end.  There  is  no  place 
in  infinite  space  for  a  heaven  or  for  a  celestial  throne.  A 
world  of  law  and  of  process  does  not  need  a  living  ladder  to 
lead  from  the  earth  below  to  God  on  high.  Though  the  stars 
be  peopled  with  souls  superior  to  ours,  still  they  cannot  stand 
nearer  to  God  than  does  man  with  his  freedom,  his  moral 
striving,  his  visions  of  the  highest  and  the  best.  Through 
man’s  spiritual  nature  God,  too,  is  recognized  as  a  Spirit; 
through  man’s  moral  consciousness  God  is  conceived  of  as  the 
Ruler  of  a  moral  world ;  but  this  same  process  at  once  does 
away  with  the  need  for  any  other  spirits  or  divine  powers 
beside  Him.  God  alone  has  become  the  object  of  human 
longing.  Man  feels  akin  to  His  God  who  is  ever  near ;  he 
learns  to  know  Him  ever  better.  He  can  dispense  with  the 
angelic  hosts.  As  they  return  to  the  fiery  stream  of  poetic 
imagination  whence  they  emerged,  nebulous  figures  of  a  glo¬ 
rious  world  that  has  vanished,  man  rises  above  angel  and 
Seraph  by  his  own  power  to  the  dignity  of  a  servant,  nay,  a 
child  of  God.  Indeed,  as  the  rabbis  said,  the  prophets,  sages, 
and  seers  are  the  true  messengers  of  God,  the  angels  who  do 
His  service.1 

1  Ned.  20  b;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  CIII,  17-18;  Ibn  Ezra:  Introduction  to  his 
commentary  on  the  Pentateuch. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 


Satan  and  the  Spirits  of  Evil 

i.  The  great  advantage  of  Judaism  over  other  religious 
systems  lies  in  its  unified  view  of  life,  which  it  regards  as  a 
continuous  conflict  between  good  and  evil  influences  within 
man.  As  man  succeeds  in  overcoming  evil  and  achieving 
good,  he  asserts  his  own  moral  personality.  Outside  of  man 
Judaism  sees  no  real  contrast  between  good  and  evil,  since 
both  have  emanated  from  God,  the  Spirit  of  goodness.  Ju¬ 
daism  recognizes  no  primal  power  of  evil  plotting  against 
God  and  defying  Him,  such  as  that  of  the  Persian  dualism. 
Nor  does  Judaism  espouse  the  dualism  of  spirit  and  matter, 
identifying  matter  with  evil,  from  which  the  soul  strives  to 
free  itself  while  confined  in  the  prison  house  of  the  body. 
Such  a  conception  is  taught  by  Plato,  probably  under  Oriental 
influence,  and  is  shared  by  the  Hindu  and  Christian  ascetics 
who  torture  themselves  in  order  to  suppress  bodily  desire  in 
their  quest  of  a  higher  existence.  The  Jewish  conception  of 
the  unity  of  God  necessitates  the  unity  of  the  world,  which 
leaves  no  place  for  a  cosmic  principle  of  evil.  In  this  Judaism 
dissents  from  modern  philosophers  also,  such  as  John  Stuart 
Mill  and  even  Kant,  who  speak  of  a  radical  evil  in  nature. 
No  power  of  evil  can  exist  in  independence  of  God.1  As  the 
Psalmist  says:  “His  kingdom  ruleth  over  all.  Bless  the 
Lord,  ye  angels  of  His,  ye  mighty  in  strength  that  fulfill  His 
word,  hearkening  unto  the  voice  of  His  word.”  2 

1  Compare  Gen.  R.  to  Gen.  I,  31.  2  Ps.  CIII,  19-20. 

189 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


190 

This  increased  the  difficulty  of  the  problem  of  the  origin  of 
evil.  The  answer  given  by  the  general  Jewish  consciousness, 
expressed  by  both  Biblical  and  rabbinical  writers,  is  that  evil 
comes  from  the  free  will  of  man,  who  is  endowed  with  the 
power  of  rebelling  against  the  will  of  God.  This  idea  is  sym¬ 
bolized  in  the  story  of  the  fall  of  man.  The  serpent,  or  tempter, 
represents  the  evil  inclination  which  arises  in  man  with  his 
first  consciousness  of  freedom.  So  in  Jewish  belief  Satan, 
the  Adversary,  is  only  an  allegorical  figure,  representing  the 
evil  of  the  world,  both  physical  and  moral.  He  was  sent  by 
God  to  test  man  for  his  own  good,  to  develop  him  morally. 
He  is  “the  spirit  that  ever  wills  evil,  but  achieves  the  good,” 
and  therefore  in  the  book  of  Job  he  actually  comes  before 
God’s  throne  as  one  of  the  angels.1 

2.  In  tracing  the  belief  in  demons  we  must  draw  a  sharp 
distinction  between  popular  views  and  systematic  doctrine.2 
During  the  Biblical  era  the  people  believed  in  goat-like  spirits 
roaming  the  fields  and  woods,  the  deserts  and  ravines,  whom 
they  called  Seirim  —  hairy  demons,  or  satyrs,  —  and  to  whom 
they  sacrificed  in  fear  and  trembling.3  As  Ibn  Ezra  in¬ 
geniously  pointed  out  in  his  commentary,  Azazel  was  origi¬ 
nally  a  desert  demon  dwelling  in  the  ravines  near  Jerusalem, 
to  whom  a  scapegoat  was  offered  at  the  opening  of  the  year, 
a  rite  preserved  in  the  Day  of  Atonement  cult  of  the  Mosaic 
Code.4  In  fact,  in  ancient  Babylon,  Syria,  and  Palestine 
diseases  and  accidents  were  universally  ascribed  to  evil 
spirits  of  the  wilderness  or  the  nether  world.  The  Bible 
occasionally  mentions  these  evil  spirits  as  punitive  angels 
sent  by  God.  In  the  more  popular  view,  which  is  reflected 

1  Job  I,  6. 

2  See  J.  E.,  art.  Demonology;  Satan;  Belial;  Enc.  Rel.  and  Eth.,  art. 
Demons  and  Spirits,  Jewish;  Davidson,  1.  c.,  300-306;  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  334-340; 
D.  F.  Strauss,  1.  c.,  II,  1-18. 

3  Lev.  XVII,  7;  Deut.  XXXII,  17;  Isa.  XIII,  21;  XXXIV,  14. 

4  Lev.  XVI,  8 ;  see  Ibn  Ezra ;  J.  E.  and  Enc.  Rel.  and  Eth.,  art.  Azazel. 


SATAN  AND  THE  SPIRITS  OF  EVIL 


191 

by  apocryphal  and  rabbinical  literature,  and  which  was  in¬ 
fluenced  by  both  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  religions,  they 
appear  in  increasing  numbers  and  with  specific  names.  Each 
disease  had  its  peculiar  demon.  Desolate  places,  cemeteries, 
and  the  darkness  of  night  were  all  peopled  by  superstition 
with  hosts  of  demons  ( Shedim ),  at  whose  head  was  Azazel, 
Samael;  Beelzebub ,  the  Philistine  god  of  flies  and  of  illness ; 1 
Belial ,  king  of  the  nether  world  ; 2  or  the  Persian  Ashma  Deva 
(Evil  Spirit),  under  the  Hebrew  name  of  Ashmodai  or  She- 
machzai?  The  queen  of  the  demons  was  Lilith  or  Iggereth 
hath  Mahlath ,  “the  dancer  on  the  housetops.”  4 

The  Essenes  seem  to  have  made  special  studies  of  both 
demonology  and  angelology,  believing  that  they  could  invoke 
the  good  spirits  and  conjure  the  evil  ones,  thus  curing  various 
diseases,  which  they  ascribed  to  possession  by  demons.  While 
these  exorcisms  are  not  so  common  in  the  Talmud  as  they  are 
in  the  New  Testament,  there  remain  many  indications  that 
such  practices  were  followed  by  Jewish  saints  and  believed 
by  the  people.  Often  the  rabbis  seem  to  have  considered 
them  the  work  of  “unclean  spirits,”  which  they  endeavored 
to  overcome  with  the  “spirit  of  holiness,”  and  particularly 
by  the  study  of  the  Torah.5 

3.  This  answers  implicitly  the  question  of  the  origin  of 
demons.  Obviously  the  belief  in  malevolent  spirits  is  incom¬ 
patible  with  the  existence  of  an  all-benign  and  all- wise  Creator. 
Accordingly,  two  alternative  explanations  are  offered  in  the 
rabbinical  and  apocalyptic  writings.  According  to  one,  the 
demons  are  half  angelic  and  half  animal  beings,  sharing  in¬ 
telligence  and  flight  with  the  angels,  sensuality  with  beasts 
and  with  men.  Their  double  nature  is  ascribed  to  incom¬ 
pleteness,  because  they  were  created  last  of  all  beings,  and 

1  J.  E.,  art.  Beelzebub.  2  J.  E.,  art.  Belial. 

3  Enoch  VI,  7;  J.  E.,  art.  Ashmodai;  Levy:  W.  B.,  Shemachzai. 

4  Levy  :  W.  B.,  Lilith ;  Iggereth.  6  J.  E.,  art.  Demonology. 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


192 

their  creation  was  interrupted  by  the  coming  of  the  Sabbath, 
putting  an  end  to  all  creation.1  According  to  the  other  view 
they  are  the  offspring  of  the  “ fallen  angels,”  issuing  from  the 
union  of  the  angels  with  the  daughters  of  men  as  described  in 
Gen.  VI,  1  f.  These  spread  the  virus  of  impurity  over  all  the 
earth,  causing  carnal  desire  and  every  kind  of  lewdness.  The 
whole  world  of  demons  is  regarded  as  alienated  from  God  by 
the  rebellion  of  the  heavenly  hosts,  as  if  the  fall  of  man  by 
sin  had  its  prototype  in  the  celestial  sphere.2  A  rabbinical 
legend,  which  corresponds  with  a  Persian  myth,  ascribes  the 
origin  of  demons  to  the  intercourse  of  Adam  with  Lilith,  the 
night  spirit.3  On  the  other  hand,  the  archangel  Samael  is 
said  to  have  cast  lascivious  glances  at  the  beauty  of  Eve,  and 
then  to  have  turned  into  Satan  the  Tempter.4  The  Jewish 
systems  of  both  angelology  and  demonology,  first  worked  out 
in  the  apocalyptic  literature,  were  further  elaborated  by  the 
Cabbalah. 

Angelology  found  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  liturgy  in 
connection  with  the  Kedushah  Benediction  and  likewise  in 
the  liturgy  and  the  theology  of  the  Church.5 

On  the  other  hand  the  belief  in  evil  spirits  and  in  Satan, 
the  Evil  One,  remained  rather  a  matter  of  popular  credulity 
and  never  became  a  positive  doctrine  of  the  Synagogue. 
True,  the  liturgy  contained  morning  prayers  which  asked  God 
for  protection  against  the  Evil  One,  and  formulas  invoking 
the  angels  to  shield  one  during  the  night  from  evil'  spirits.6 
But  the  arch-fiend  was  never  invested  with  power  over  the 
soul,  depriving  man  of  his  perfect  freedom  and  divine  sover¬ 
eignty,  as  in  the  Christian  Church. 

1  Aboth  V,  6;  P.  d.  R.  El.,  XIX;  Gen.  R.  VII,  7. 

2  Enoch  VII;  Yalkut  Gen.  44,  47.  3  Erubin,  18  b. 

4  P.  d.  R.  El.,  XIII;  Yalkut  Gen.  25. 

5  See  Abrahams’  Ann.  to  Singers’  Prayerb.  XLIV  f.  and  for  the  Church,  Enc. 
Rel.  and  Eth.,  Demons  and  Spirits,  Christian. 

6  Abrahams,  1.  c.,  p.  7,  196;  XX,  CCXV. 


SATAN  AND  THE  SPIRITS  OF  EVIL 


193 


4.  In  the  formation  of  the  idea  of  the  arch-fiend,  Satan, 
we  can  observe  the  interworking  of  several  elements.  The 
name  Satan  in  no  way  indicates  a  demon.  It  denotes  simply 
the  adversary,  the  one  who  offers  hindrances.  The  name  was 
thus  applied  to  the  accuser  at  court.1  In  Zechariah  and  in 
Job  2  Satan  appears  at  the  throne  of  God  as  the  prosecutor, 
roaming  about  the  earth  to  espy  the  transgressions  of  men, 
seeking  to  lure  them  to  their  destruction.  In  the  Books  of 
Chronicles3  Satan  has  become  a  proper  name,  meaning  the 
Seducer. 

The  Serpent  in  the  Paradise  story  is  more  completely  a 
demon,  although  the  legend  intends  rather  to  account  for 
man’s  morality,  his  distinction  between  good  and  evil.  Satan 
was  then  identified  with  the  serpent,  who  was  called  by  the 
rabbis  Nahash  ha  Kadmoni ,  “the  primeval  Serpent,”  after 
the  analogy  of  the  serpent-like  form  of  Ahriman.  Thus 
Satan  in  the  person  of  the  serpent  became  the  embodiment  of 
evil,  the  prime  cause  of  sin  and  death.4  Possibly  a  part  in 
this  process  was  played  by  the  Babylonian  figure  of  Tihamat , 
the  dragon  of  chaos  (Tehom  in  the  Hebrew),  with  whom  the 
god  Marduk  wrestled  for  dominion  over  the  world,  and  who 
has  parallels  in  the  Biblical  Rahab  and  similar  mythological 
figures. 

We  must  not  overlook  such  rabbinical  legends  as  the  one 
about  how  the  poisonous  breath  of  the  serpent  infected  the 
whole  human  race,  except  Israel  who  has  been  saved  by  the  law 
at  Sinai.5  Occasionally  we  hear  that  the  Evil  Spirit  ( Yezer  ha 
Ra)  will  be  slain  by  God  6  or  by  the  Messiah.7  These  Haggadic 
sayings,  however,  were  never  accepted  as  normative  for  reli¬ 
gious  belief.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  always  in  dispute, 

1  Ps.  CIX,  6.  2  Zech.  Ill,  1 ;  Job  I,  6.  n  Chron.  XXI,  1. 

4  See  B.  Wisdom  II,  24;  P.  d.  R.  El.,  XIII. 

6  Shab.  146  a;  Yeb.  103  b;  Ab.  Zar.  22  b. 

6  Suk.  52  a.  7  Targ.  to  Isa.  XI,  4. 


o 


194 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


and  many  a  Talmudic  teacher  minimized  the  fiendish  character 
of  Satan,  who  became  a  stimulus  to  moral  betterment  through 
the  trials  he  imposes.1  Philo,  allegorizing  the  legends,  turns 
the  evil  angels  of  the  Bible  into  wicked  men.2 

5.  As  to  demons  in  general,  the  Talmudists  never  doubted 
their  existence,  but  endeavored  to  minimize  their  importance. 
They  changed  the  demon  Azazel  into  a  geographical  term  by 
transposing  the  letters.3  They  explained  “the  sons  of  God 
who  came  to  the  daughters  of  men  to  give  birth  to  the  giants 
of  old”  as  aristocratic  Sethites  who  intermarried  with  low- 
class  families  of  the  Cainites.4  As  to  the  rest,  the  entire 
belief  in  demons  and  ghosts  was  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  folk 
mind  to  be  counteracted  by  the  rabbis.  Even  lucid  thinkers 
of  the  Middle  Ages  were  caught  by  these  baneful  supersti¬ 
tions,  including  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  Crescas,  and  Nahmanides,  the 
mystic.5  Only  a  small  group  fought  against  this  offshoot  of 
fear  and  superstition,  among  them  Saadia,  Maimonides  and 
his  school,  Ibn  Ezra,  Gersonides,  and  Juda  Ibn  Balag.  To 
Maimonides  the  demons  mentioned  in  Mishnah  and  Talmud 
are  only  figurative  expressions  for  physical  plagues.  He  con¬ 
siders  the  belief  in  demons  equivalent  to  a  belief  in  pagan 
deities.  “Many  pious  Israelites,”  he  says,6  “believe  in  the 
reality  of  demons  and  witches,  thinking  that  they  should  not 
be  made  the  object  of  worship  and  regard,  for  the  reason  that 
the  Torah  has  prohibited  it.  But  they  fail  to  see  that  the 
Law  commands  us  to  banish  all  these  things  from  sight,  be¬ 
cause  they  are  but  falsehood  and  deceit,  as  is  the  whole 
idolatry  with  which  they  are  intrinsically  connected.” 

1  B.  B.  16  a.  2  De  Gigantibus,  2-4. 

3  Sifra  Lev.  XVI,  8 ;  Yoma,  67  b. 

4  See  the  Ethiopic  “Adam  and  Eve”;  C.  Bezold,  Die  Schatzhoehle ,  p.  18; 
comp.  Gen.  R.  XXVI. 

5  See  D.  Cassel :  Cuzari,  p.  402  note. 

6  Moreh  III,  29-37,  46;  Ibn  Ezra  to  Job  I,  6;  comp.  Finkelscherer : 
Maitnunis ’  Stellung  zum  Aberglauben ,  1894,  p.  40-51. 


SATAN  AND  THE  SPIRITS  OF  EVIL 


195 

6.  This  sound  view  was  disseminated  by  the  rationalistic 
school  in  its  contest  with  the  Cabbalah,  and  has  exerted  a 
wholesome  influence  upon  modern  Judaism.  Thus  Satan  is 
rejected  by  Jewish  doctrine,  while  Luther  and  Calvin,  the 
Reformers  of  the  Christian  Church,  still  believed  in  him. 
Milton’s  “ Paradise  Lost”  placed  him  in  the  very  foreground 
of  Christian  belief,  and  the  leaders  of  the  Protestant  Churches, 
up  to  the  present,  accord  him  a  prominent  place  in  their 
scheme  of  salvation,  as  the  opponent  and  counterpart  of  God. 
In  his  work  on  Christian  dogmatics,  David  Friedrich  Strauss 
observes  acutely  :  “The  whole  (Christian)  idea  of  the  Messiah 
and  his  kingdom  must  necessarily  have  as  its  counterpart  a 
kingdom  of  demons  with  a  personal  ruler  at  its  head ;  without 
this  it  is  no  more  possible  than  the  north  pole  of  the  magnet 
would  be  without  a  south  pole.  If  Christ  has  come  to  destroy 
the  works  of  the  Devil,  there  would  be  no  need  for  him  to 
come,  unless  there  were  a  Devil.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
Devil  is  to  be  considered  merely  the  personification  of  evil, 
then  a  Christ  who  would  be  only  the  personification  of  the 
ideal,  but  not  a  real  personality,  would  suffice  equally.”  1 
At  present  Christian  theologians  and  even  philosophers  have 
recourse  to  Platonic  and  Buddhist  ideas,  that  evil  is  implanted 
in  the  world  from  which  humanity  must  free  itself,  and  they 
thus  present  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  redemption  par 
excellence .2  Over  against  this,  Judaism  still  maintains  that 
there  is  no  radical  or  primitive  evil  in  the  world.  No  power 
exists  which  is  intrinsically  hostile  to  God,  and  from  which 
man  must  be  redeemed.  According  to  the  Jewish  concep¬ 
tion,  the  goodness  and  glory  of  God  fill  both  heaven  and 
earth,  while  holiness  penetrates  all  of  life,  bringing  matter 
and  flesh  within  the  realm  of  the  divine.  Evil  is  but  the  con- 

1  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  II,  18. 

2  Euken,  D.  W ahrheitsgehalt  d.  Religion ,  p.  384,  402 ;  Bousset,  Wesen  d. 
Rel.y  p.  239. 


196 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


trast  of  good,  as  shade  is  but  the  contrast  of  light.  Evil  can 
be  overcome  by  each  individual,  as  he  realizes  his  own  solemn 
duty  and  the  divine  will.  Its  only  existence  is  in  the  field  of 
morality,  where  it  is  a  test  of  man’s  freedom  and  power.  Evil 
is  within  man,  and  against  it  he  is  to  wage  the  battles  of  life, 
until  his  victory  signalizes  the  triumph  of  the  divine  in  his 
own  nature.1 

1  See  H.  Cohen :  Ethik  des  reinen  Willens,  282  f.,  341  f.,  428  f.,  593 : 
“Eine  Macht  des  Boesen  gibt  es  nur  im  Mythos.”  “Dieser  Mythos  fuehrt 
folgerichtig  zum  mythologischen  Gottmenschen.”  M.  Joel,  in  his  article, 
“Der  Mosaismus  und  das  Heidenthum,”  in  J.  B.  j.  Gesch.  u.  Lit.,  1904,  p.  49- 
66,  ascribes  the  belief  in  demons  to  Greek  influence.  He  holds  that  the  pro¬ 
phetic  teaching  of  God’s  unity  was  the  best  bulwark  against  demonology  and 
mysticism. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 

God  and  the  Intermediary  Powers 

i.  In  addition  to  the  angels  who  carried  out  God’s  will 
in  the  universe,  the  Biblical  and  post-Biblical  literature  recog¬ 
nizes  other  divine  powers  which  mediate  between  Him  and 
the  world  of  man.  The  more  a  seer  or  thinker  became  con¬ 
scious  of  the  spirituality  and  transcendency  of  God,  the  more 
he  felt  the  gulf  between  the  infinite  Spirit  and  the  world  of  the 
senses.  In  order  to  bridge  this  gap,  the  Deity  was  replaced  by 
one  of  His  manifestations  which  could  appear  and  act  in  a 
world  circumscribed  by  space  and  time.1  As  we  found  in 
prophecy  the  direct  revelation  of  God  giving  way  to  a  mediat¬ 
ing  angel,  so  either  “the  Glory”  or  “the  Name”  of  JHVH 
takes  the  place  of  God  himself.  That  is,  instead  of  God’s 
own  being,  His  reflected  radiance  or  the  power  invested  in 
His  name  descends  from  on  high.  The  rabbis  kept  the  direct 
revelation  of  God  for  the  hallowed  past  or  the  desired  future, 
but  at  the  same  time  they  needed  a  suitable  term  for  the 
presence  of  God ;  they  therefore  coined  the  word  Shekinah 
—  “the  divine  Condescension”  or  “Presence”  —  to  be  used 
instead  of  the  Deity  himself.  Thus  the  verse  of  the  Psalm  : 2 
“God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  God,”  is  translated  by 
the  Targum,  “The  divine  Presence  ( Shekinah )  resteth  upon 

1  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  341-351;  Weber,  1.  c.,  177-190;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  336, 
346;  Davidson,  1.  c.,  36-38,  115-129;  Schechter,  Aspects,  p.  21-45;  Schmiedl, 
1.  c.,  35-48;  J.  E.,  art.  Holy  Spirit;  Logos;  Memra;  Metatron;  Name  of 
God;  Shekinah;  Enc.  Rel.  and  Eth.,  I,  308-312. 

2  Ps.  LXXXII,  1. 


197 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


198 

the  congregation  of  the  godly.”  Instead  of  the  conclusion  of 
the  speech  to  Moses,  “Let  them  make  Me  a  sanctuary,  that 
I  may  dwell  among  them,”  1  the  Targum  has,  “And  I  shall 
let  My  Presence  (. Shekinah )  dwell  among  them.”  Thus  in 
the  view  of  the  rabbis  Shekinah  represents  the  visible  part  of 
the  divine  majesty,  which  descends  from  heaven  to  earth, 
and  on  the  radiance  of  which  are  fed  the  spiritual  beings, 
both  angels  and  the  souls  of  the  saints.2  God  himself  was 
wrapped  in  light,  whose  brilliancy  no  living  being,  however 
lofty,  could  endure ;  but  the  Shekinah  or  reflection  of  the 
divine  glory  might  be  beheld  by  the  elect  either  in  their  life¬ 
time  or  in  the  hereafter.  In  this  way  the  rabbis  solved  many 
contradictory  passages  of  Scripture,  some  of  which  speak  of 
God  as  invisible,  while  others  describe  man  as  beholding  Him.3 

2.  Just  as  the  references  to  God’s  appearing  to  man  sug¬ 
gested  luminous  powers  mediating  the  vision  of  God,  so  the 
passages  which  represent  God  as  speaking  suggest  powers 
mediating  the  voice.  Hence  arose  the  conception  of  the 
divine  Word ,  invested  with  divine  powers  both  physical  and 
spiritual.  The  first  act  of  God  in  the  Bible  is  that  He  spoke, 
and  by  this  word  the  world  came  into  being.  The  Word  was 
thus  conceived  of  as  the  first  created  being,  an  intermediary 
power  between  the  Spirit  of  the  world  and  the  created  world 
order.  The  word  of  God,  important  in  the  cosmic  order,  is 
still  more  so  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds.  The  Word 
is  at  times  a  synonym  of  divine  revelation  to  the  men  of  the 
early  generations  or  to  Israel,  the  bearer  of  the  Law.  Hence 
the  older  Haggadah  places  beside  the  Shekinah  the  divine 
Word  (Hebrew,  Maamar;  Aramaic,  Memra;  Greek,  Logos )  as 
the  intermediary  force  of  revelation. 

Contact  with  the  Platonic  and  Stoic  philosophies  led 
gradually  to  a  new  development  which  appears  in  Philo.  The 

1  Ex.  XXV,  8.  2Ber.  I?a> 

3  See  Ber.,  1.  c.,  Rab’s  reference  to  Ex.  XXIV,  n. 


GOD  AND  THE  INTERMEDIARY  POWERS 


199 


Word  or  Logos  becomes  “the  first-created  Son  of  God/’  having 
a  personality  independent  from  God ;  in  fact  he  is  a  kind  of 
vice  regent  of  God  himself.  From  this  it  was  but  a  short  step 
toward  considering  him  a  partner  and  peer  of  the  Almighty, 
as  was  done  by  the  Church  with  its  doctrine  that  the  Word 
became  flesh  in  Christ,  the  son  of  God.1  In  view  of  this  the 
rabbinical  schools  gave  up  the  idea  of  the  personified  Word, 
replacing  it  with  the  Torah  or  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  older 
term  was  retained  only  in  liturgical  formulas,  such  as  :  “Who 
created  the  heavens  by  His  Word,”  or,  “Who  by  His  Word 
created  the  twilight  and  by  Wisdom  openeth  the  gates  of 
heaven.”  2 

3.  As  has  been  shown  above,3  Wisdom  is  described  in  the 
Bible  as  the  first  of  all  created  beings,  the  assistant  and  coun¬ 
selor  of  God  in  the  work  of  creation.  Then  we  see  that  Ben 
Sira  identifies  Wisdom  with  the  Torah.4  Thus  the  Torah, 
too,  was  raised  to  a  cosmic  power,  the  sum  and  substance  of 
all  wisdom.  In  fact,  the  Torah,  like  the  Logos  of  Plato,  was 
regarded  as  comprising  the  ideas  or  prototypes  of  all  things 
as  in  a  universal  plan.  The  Torah  is  the  divine  pattern  for 
the  world.  In  such  a  connection  Torah  is  far  from  meaning 
the  Law,  as  Weber  asserts.5  It  means  rather  the  heavenly 
book  of  instruction  which  contains  all  the  wisdom  of  the  ages, 
and  which  God  himself  used  as  guide  at  the  Creation.  God  is 
depicted  as  an  architect  with  His  plan  drafted  before  He  began 
the  erection  of  the  edifice,  —  a  conception  which  avoids  all 
danger  of  deifying  the  Logos. 

4.  Several  other  conceptions,  however,  do  not  belong  at  all 
to  the  intermediary  powers,  where  Weber  places  them.6  This 
applies  to  Metatron  (identical  with  the  Persian  Mithras),7 

1  John  I,  1-6.  2  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  p.  96,  292. 

3  Ch.  XXII.  See  Prov.  VIII,  22.  4  XXIV,  9  f. 

5  Weber,  1.  c.,  197  f.  6  L.  c.,  178  f. 

7  See  Kohut :  Jued.  Angelologie,  36-38 ;  Schorr :  He  Halutz,  VIII,  3 ; 
J.  E.,  art.  Merkabah. 


200 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


whom  the  mystic  lore  calls  the  charioteer  of  the  heavenly 
throne-chariot,  represented  by  the  rabbis  as  the  highest  of 
the  angels,  leader  of  the  heavenly  hosts,  and  vice-regent  of 
God.  That  no  cosmic  power  was  ascribed  to  him  is  proved 
by  the  very  fact  of  his  identification  with  Enoch,  whom  the 
pre-Talmudic  Haggadah  describes  as  taken  up  into  heaven 
and  changed  into  an  angel  of  the  highest  rank,  standing  near 
God’s  throne.1 

5.  The  only  real  mediator  between  God  and  man  is  the 
Spirit  of  God,  which  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  both 
the  creation  and  divine  revelation.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  the  Spirit  of  God  is  described  as  hovering  over  the 
gloom  of  chaos  like  the  mother  bird  over  the  egg,  ready  to 
hatch  out  the  nascent  world.2  God  breathed  His  spirit  into 
the  body  of  man,  to  make  him  also  god-like.3  The  prophet 
likewise  is  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  God  to  see  visions  and  to 
hear  the  divine  message.4  Thus  the  spirit  of  God  has  two 
aspects;  it  is  the  cosmic  principle  which  imbues  primal 
matter  with  life ;  it  is  a  link  between  the  soul  of  man  and  God 
on  high.  The  view  of  Ezekiel  was  but  one  step  from  this,  to 
conceive  the  spirit  as  a  personal  being,  and  place  him  beside 
God  as  an  angel. 

The  prophets  and  psalmists,  feeling  the  spirit  of  God  upon 
them,  considered  it  an  emanation  of  the  Deity.  Still,  a  pro¬ 
founder  insight  soon  disapproved  the  severance  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  from  God  himself,  as  if  He  were  not  altogether  spirit. 
Therefore  the  accepted  term  came  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit .5 
In  this  form,  however,  his  personality  became  more  distinct 
and  his  separate  existence  more  defined.  Henceforth  he  is 

1  See  Targ.  Yer.  to  Gen.  V,  24;  J.  E.,  art.  Metatron.  Comp.  Eth.  Enoch 
LXX,  1,  and  Slav.  Enoch  III-XXIV. 

2  Gen.  I,  2.  3  Gen  n>  7 .  yi,  3 ;  job  XXXII,  8. 

4  Num.  XI,  17  f. ;  XXIV,  2;  XXVII,  18;  Ex.  XXVIII,  3;  XXXI,  3  f.; 
Isa.  XI,  2;  LXI,  1 ;  Ezek.  I,  12,  20. 

6  Isa.  LXIII,  10;  Ps.  LI,  13. 


GOD  AND  THE  INTERMEDIARY  POWERS 


201 


the  messenger  of  God,  performing  miracles  or  causing  them, 
speaking  in  the  place  of  God,  or  defending  His  people  Israel. 
Nay,  more,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  supposed  to  have  dictated  the 
words  of  Scripture  to  the  sacred  writers,  and  to  have  inspired 
the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  in  collecting  the  sacred 
writings  into  a  canon.1 

Moreover,  the  workings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  continued  long 
after  the  completion  of  the  Biblical  canon.  All  the  chief 
institutions  of  the  Synagogue  originally  claimed  that  they 
were  prompted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  resting  upon  the  leaders  of 
the  community.  This  claim  was  basic  to  the  authority  of 
tradition  and  the  continuity  of  the  authority  of  Jewish 
lore.  It  seems,  however,  that  certain  abuses  were  caused  by 
miracle-workers  who  disseminated  false  doctrines  under  the 
alleged  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore  the  rabbis 
restricted  such  claims  to  ancient  times  and  insisted  more 
strongly  than  ever  upon  the  preservation  of  the  traditional 
lore.  For  a  time  a  substitute  was  found  in  the  Bath  Kol 
(“Echo”  or  “Whisper  of  a  heavenly  voice”),  but  this  also 
was  soon  discredited  by  the  schools.2  Obviously  the  rabbis 
desired  to  avert  the  deification  of  either  the  Holy  Spirit  or 
the  Word.  Sound  common  sense  was  their  norm  for  inter¬ 
preting  the  truth  of  the  divine  revelation.  In  other  words, 
they  relied  on  God  alone  as  the  living  force  in  the  development 
of  Judaism. 

6.  But  some  sort  of  mediation  was  ascribed  to  several 
other  spiritual  forces.  First,  the  Name  of  God  often  takes 
the  place  of  God  himself.3  When  the  name  of  the  Deity  was 
called  over  some  hallowed  spot,  the  worshipers  felt  that  the 
presence  of  God  also  was  bound  up  with  the  sacred  place.4 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Holy  Spirit.  2  See  J.  E.  art.,  Bath  Kol. 

3  See  Tos.  Sota  XIII,  2  ;  XXLV,  n  ;  compare  Levy :  W.  B.,  Shem;  Geiger : 

Urschrift,  273  f. 

4  Deut.  XII,  5,  11 ;  II  Sam.  XII,  28;  Neh.  I,  9;  Jer.  VII,  12,  14. 


202 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


“My  name  is  in  him,”  says  God  of  the  angel  whom  He  sends 
to  lead  the  people.1  The  invocation  of  the  name  was  believed 
to  have  an  actual  influence  upon  the  Deity.  Furthermore, 
since  God  is  frequently  represented  as  swearing  by  His  own 
name,2  this  ineffable  name  was  invested  with  magic  powers, 
as  if  God  himself  dwelt  therein.3  Thus  it  came  to  be  used 
as  a  talisman  by  the  popular  saints.4  Indeed,  God  is  de¬ 
scribed  as  conjuring  the  depths  of  the  abyss  by  His  holy 
name,  lest  they  overflow  their  boundaries.5  Moreover,  the 
Name,  like  the  Word,  or  Logos,  was  regarded  as  a  creative 
power,  so  that  we  are  told  that  before  the  world  was  created 
there  were  only  God  and  His  holy  Name.6  Owing  to  the 
introduction  of  Adonai  (the  Lord)  for  JHVH,  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  the  Name  fell  into  oblivion  and  the  Name  itself  be¬ 
came  a  mystery ;  therefore  its  cosmic  element  also  was  lost 
and  it  dropped  into  the  sphere  of  mystic  and  philosophical 
speculation. 

7.  Another  attribute  of  God  which  received  some  attention, 
owing  to  the  frequent  mention  of  the  omnipotence  of  God  in 
the  Bible,  was  ha  Geburah  (the  Power).  A  familiar  rabbinic 
expression  is  :  “  We  have  heard  from  the  mouth  of  the  Power,” 
that  is,  from  the  divine  omnipotence.7  Two  fundamental 
principles  were  early  perceived  in  the  moral  order  of  the 
world :  the  punitive  justice  and  compassion  of  God.  These 
were  taken  as  the  meanings  of  the  two  most  common  Biblical 
names  of  God,  JHVH  and  Elohim.  Elohim,  being  occasion¬ 
ally  used  in  dispensing  justice,8  was  thought  to  signify  God 
in  His  capacity  as  Judge  of  the  whole  earth,  and  hence  as  the 
divine  Justice.  JHVH,  on  the  other  hand,  meant  the  divine 
mercy,  as  it  was  used  in  the  revelation  of  the  long-suffering 

1  Ex.  XXIII,  21.  2  Jer.  XLIV,  26;  Isa.  XLV,  23. 

8  Midr.  Teh.  to  Ps.  XXXVIII,  8 ;  XCI,  8.  “  Taan.  Ill,  8. 

6  Prayer  of  Manasses,  3.  6  P.  d.  R.  El.  III. 

7  See  Levy :  W.  B.,  Geburah.  8  Ex.  XXI,  6. 


GOD  AND  THE  INTERMEDIARY  POWERS 


203 


and  merciful  God  to  Moses  after  the  sin  of  Israel  before  the 
golden  calf.1  Thus  both  the  rabbis  and  Philo 2  often  speak  of 
these  two  attributes,  justice  and  mercy,  as  though  they  consti¬ 
tuted  independent  beings,  deliberating  with  God  as  to  what  He 
should  do.  The  Midrash  tells  in  a  parable  how  before  the 
creation  of  man,  Justice,  Mercy,  Truth,  and  Peace  were  called 
in  by  God  as  His  counselors  to  deliberate  whether  or  no  man 
should  be  created.3 

8.  One  Haggadah  concludes  from  the  passage  about  Crea¬ 
tion  in  Proverbs,  that  there  are  three  creative  powers,  Wis¬ 
dom,  Understanding,  and  Knowledge.4  Another  derives  from 
Scripture  seven  creative  principles :  Knowledge,  Understand¬ 
ing,  Might,  Grace  and  Mercy,  Justice  and  Rebuke ;  5  and 
seven  attributes  which  do  service  before  God’s  throne :  Wis¬ 
dom,  Judgment  and  Justice,  Grace  and  Mercy,  Truth  and 
Peace.6  By  combining  these  lists  of  three  and  seven  this  was 
finally  enlarged  to  ten,  which  became  the  basis  for  the  entire 
mystic  lore.  Thus  the  Babylonian  master  Rab  enumerates 
ten  creative  principles :  Wisdom,  Understanding,  and  Knowl¬ 
edge,  Might  and  Power,  Rebuke,  Justice  and  Righteousness, 
Love  and  Mercy.7  It  is  hard  to  say  whether  the  ten  attri¬ 
butes  of  the  Haggadah  are  at  all  connected  with  the  ten  Sefiroth 
(cosmic  forces  or  circles)  of  the  Cabbalah.  These  last  are 
hardly  the  creation  of  pure  monotheism,  but  rather  emanations 
from  the  infinite,  conceived  after  the  pattern  of  heathen  ideas.8 

9.  The  assumption  of  all  these  intermediaries  aimed 
chiefly  to  spiritualize  the  conception  of  God  and  to  elevate 

1  Ex.  xxxiv,  5  f. 

2  Gen.  R.  XXI,  8 ;  Targ.  Ps.  LVI,  11,  and  see  Siegfried :  Philo ,  213  f. 

3  Gen.  R.  VIII,  5,  after  Ps.  LXXXV,  11-12. 

4  P.  d.  R.  El.  Ill;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  L,  1,  ref.  to  Prov.  Ill,  19-20. 

5  A.  d.  R.  N.  XXXVII,  ref.  to  Prov.  Ill,  19  f.;  Ps.  LXV,  7;  LXXXV,  21- 
22;  Job  XXVII,  11. 

6  Ref.  to  Hosea  II,  21-22. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Sefiroth,  the  Ten ;  Yezirah,  Sefer. 


7  Hag.  12  a. 


204 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Him  above  all  child-like,  anthropomorphic  views,  so  that  He 
becomes  a  free  Mind  ruling  the  whole  universe.  At  the  same 
time,  it  became  natural  to  ascribe  material  substance  to  these 
intermediaries.  As  they  filled  the  chasm  between  the  super¬ 
mundane  Deity  and  the  world  of  the  senses,  they  had  to 
share  the  nature  of  both  matter  and  mind.  Hence  the 
Shekinah  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  described  by  both  the  rabbis 
and  the  medieval  philosophers  as  a  fine,  luminous,  or  ethereal 
substance.1  The  entire  ancient  and  medieval  systems  were 
modeled  after  the  idea  of  a  ladder  leading  up,  step  by  step, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  sphere ;  God,  the  Most  High, 
being  at  the  same  time  above  the  highest  rung  of  the  ladder 
and  yet  also  a  part  of  the  whole. 

io.  Our  modern  system  of  thought  holds  the  relation  of 
God  to  nature  and  man  to  be  quite  different  from  all  this. 
To  our  mind  God  is  the  only  moral  and  spiritual  power  of  life. 
He  is  mirrored  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  as  well  as  intel¬ 
lectual  nature  of  man,  and  therefore  is  near  to  the  human 
conscience,  owing  to  the  divine  forces  within  man  himself. 
Not  the  world  without,  but  the  world  within  leads  us  to  God 
and  tells  us  what  God  is.  Hence  we  need  no  intermediary 
beings,  and  they  all  evaporate  before  our  mental  horizon  like 
mist,  pictures  of  the  imagination  without  objective  reality. 
Ibn  Ezra  says  in  the  introduction  to  his  commentary  on  the 
Bible  that  the  human  reason  is  the  true  intermediating  angel 
between  God  and  man,  and  we  hold  this  to  be  true  of  both 
the  intellect  and  the  conscience.  For  the  theologian  and  the 
student  of  religion  to-day  the  center  of  gravity  of  religion  is 
to  be  sought  in  psychology  and  anthropology.  In  all  his 
upward  striving,  his  craving  and  yearning  for  the  highest  and 
the  best,  in  his  loftiest  aspirations  and  ideals,  man,  like  Isaiah 
the  prophet,  can  behold  only  the  hem  of  God’s  garment ;  he 
seeks  God  above  him,  because  he  feels  Him  within  himself. 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Shekinah;  Cuzari,  II,  4;  IV,  3. 


GOD  AND  THE  INTERMEDIARY  POWERS  205 


He  must  pass,  however,  through  the  various  stages  of  growth, 
until  his  self-knowledge  leads  to  the  knowledge  of  the  God 
before  whom  he  kneels  in  awe.  Then  finally  he  feels  Him 
as  his  Father,  his  Educator  in  the  school  of  life,  the  Master 
of  the  universal  plan  in  which  the  individual  also  has  a  place 
in  building  up  the  divine  kingdom  of  truth,  justice,  and  holi¬ 
ness  on  earth.  For  centuries  he  groped  for  God,  until  he 
received  a  Book  to  serve  as  “a  lamp  to  his  feet  and  a  light  to 
his  path,”  to  interpret  to  him  his  longing  and  his  craving. 
Israel’s  Book  of  Books  must  ever  be  re-read  and  re-interpreted 
by  Israel,  the  keeper  of  the  book,  through  ages  yet  to  come. 
Well  may  we  say :  the  mediator  between  God  and  the  world 
is  man ,  the  son  of  God ;  the  mediator  between  God  and 
humanity  is  Israel ,  the  people  of  God. 


PART  II.  MAN 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 
Man’s  Place  in  Creation 

1.  The  doctrine  concerning  man  is  inseparably  connected 
with  that  about  God.  Heathenism  formed  its  deities  after 
the  image  of  man ;  they  were  merely  human  beings  of  a  larger 
growth.  Judaism,  on  the  contrary,  asserts  that  God  is 
beyond  comparison  with  mankind ;  He  is  a  purely  spiritual 
being  without  form  or  image,  and  therefore  utterly  unlike 
man.  On  the  other  hand,  man  has  a  divine  nature,  as  he 
was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  fashioned  after  His  likeness. 
The  highest  and  deepest  in  man,  his  mental,  moral,  and  spiritual 
life,  is  the  reflection  of  the  divine  nature  implanted  within 
him,  a  force  capable  of  ever  greater  development  toward 
perfection.  This  unique  distinction  among  all  creatures  gives 
man  the  highest  place  in  all  creation. 

2.  The  superiority  of  the  human  race  is  expressed  differently 
in  various  passages  in  Scripture.  According  to  the  first  chap¬ 
ter  of  Genesis  the  whole  work  of  creation  finds  its  culmina¬ 
tion  in  man,  whose  making  is  introduced  by  a  solemn  appeal 
of  God  to  the  hosts  of  heaven:  “Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness.” 1  This  declaration  proclaimed 
that  man  was  the  completion  and  the  climax  of  the  physical 
creation,  as  well  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  order  of  creation, 

1  Gen.  I,  26,  and  the  commentaries. 

206 


MAN’S  PLACE  IN  CREATION 


207 


a  world  of  moral  aims  and  purposes,  of  self-perfection  and  self- 
control.  In  the  world  of  man  all  life  is  placed  at  the  service 
of  a  higher  ideal,  after  the  divine  pattern. 

The  second  chapter  of  Genesis  depicts  man’s  creation 
differently.  Here  he  appears  as  the  first  of  created  beings, 
leading  a  life  of  perfect  innocence  in  the  garden  of  divine  bliss. 
Before  him  God  brings  all  the  newly  created  beings  that  he 
may  give  them  a  name  and  a  purpose.  But  the  Serpent  enters 
Paradise  as  tempter,  casting  the  seed  of  discord  into  the 
hearts  of  the  man  and  the  woman.  As  they  prove  too  feeble 
to  resist  temptation,  they  can  no  longer  remain  in  the  heavenly 
garden  in  their  former  happy  state.  Only  the  memory  of 
Paradise  remains,  a  golden  dream  to  cast  hope  over  the  life 
of  struggle  and  labor  into  which  they  enter.  The  idea  of  the 
legend  is  that  man’s  proper  place  is  not  among  beings  of 
the  earth,  but  he  can  reach  his  lofty  destiny  only  by  arduous 
struggle  with  the  world  of  the  senses  and  a  constant  striving 
toward  the  divine.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  more  directly 
in  the  eighth  Psalm  : 

“  What  is  man,  that  Thou  art  mindful  of  him? 

And  the  son  of  man,  that  Thou  thinkest  of  him  ? 

Yet  Thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  the  godly  beings  (Elohim) 

And  hast  crowned  him  with  glory  and  honor. 

Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  Thy  hands ; 

Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet.” 

3.  According  to  the  Haggadists,1  before  the  fall  man  ex¬ 
celled  even  the  angels  in  appearance  and  wisdom,  so  that 
they  were  ready  to  prostrate  themselves  before  him.  Only 
when  God  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon  man,  they  recog¬ 
nized  his  frailty  and  kinship  with  other  beings  of  the  earth. 
The  idea  expressed  in  this  legend  resembles  the  one  implied 
in  the  legend  of  Paradise,  viz.  man  has  a  twofold  nature. 
With  his  heavenly  spirit  he  can  soar  freely  to  the  highest 

1  Gen.  R.  VIII,  9. 


208 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


realm  of  thought,  above  the  station  of  the  angels ;  yet  his 
earthly  frame  holds  him  ever  near  the  dust.  It  is  this  very 
contrast  that  constitutes  his  greatness,  for  it  makes  him  a 
citizen  of  two  worlds,  one  perishable,  the  other  eternal.  He  is 
the  highest  result  of  Creation,  the  pride  of  the  Creator.1 
Thus  he  was  appointed  God’s  vice-regent  on  earth  by  the 
words  spoken  to  the  first  man  and  woman:  “Be  fruitful, 
and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it;  and 
have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of 
the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth.”  2  The  rabbis  add  a  striking  comment  upon  the  word 
R’du ,  which  is  used  here  for  “have  dominion”  but  which  may 
also  mean,  “go  down.”  They  say:  “The  choice  is  left  in 
man’s  own  hand.  If  you  maintain  your  heaven-born  dignity, 
you  will  have  dominion  over  all  things ;  if  not,  you  will  de¬ 
scend  to  the  level  of  the  brute  creation.”  3 

4.  An  ancient  Mishnah  derives  a  significant  lesson  from 
the  story  of  the  creation  of  man4:  “Both  the  vegetable  and 
animal  worlds  were  created  in  multitudes.  Man  alone  was 
created  as  a  single  individual  in  order  that  he  may  realize 
that  he  constitutes  a  world  in  himself,  and  carries  within 
him  the  true  value  of  life.  Hence  each  human  being  is  en¬ 
titled  to  say:  ‘The  whole  world  was  created  for  my  sake.’ 
He  who  saves  a  single  human  life  is  as  one  who  saves  a  whole 
world,  and  he  who  destroys  a  single  human  life  is  as  one 
who  destroys  a  whole  world.” 

5.  While  it  is  man’s  spiritual  side  which  is  the  image  of 
God,  yet  he  derives  all  his  powers  and  faculties  from  earthly 
life,  just  as  a  tree  draws  its  strength  from  the  soil  in  which  it 
is  rooted.  Judaism  does  not  consider  the  soul  the  exclusive 

1  Gen.  R.  XIV,  1.  2  Gen.  I,  28. 

3  Gen.  R.  VIII,  12 ;  P.  d.  R.  El.,  XI. 

4  Sanh.  IV,  5,  correctly  preserved  in  the  Yerushalmi,  and  the  addition  in 
the  Babli,  Me  Y Israel,  ought  not  to  have  been  inserted  by  Schechter,  Ab.  d. 
R.  N.,  p.  90. 


MAN’S  PLACE  IN  CREATION 


209 


seat  of  the  divine,  as  opposed  to  the  body.  In  fact,  Judaism 
admits  no  complete  dualism  of  spirit  and  matter,  however 
striking  some  aspects  of  their  contrast  may  be.  The  whole 
human  personality  is  divine,  just  so  far  as  it  asserts  its  free¬ 
dom  and  molds  its  motives  toward  a  divine  end.  In  recog¬ 
nition  of  this  fact  Hillel  claimed  reverence  for  the  human 
body  as  well  as  mind,  comparing  it  to  the  homage  rendered 
to  the  statue  of  a  king,  for  man  is  made  in  the  image  of  God, 
the  King  of  all  the  world.1  Thus  the  Greek  idea  that  man  is  a 
microcosm ,  a  world  in  miniature,  reflecting  the  cosmos  on  a 
smaller  scale,  was  expressed  in  the  Tannaitic  schools  as  well.2 
The  stamp  of  divinity  is  borne  by  man  in  his  entire  heaven¬ 
aspiring  nature,  as  he  strives  to  elevate  the  very  realm  of  the 
senses  into  the  sphere  of  morality  and  holiness. 

6.  In  this  respect  the  Jewish  view  parts  from  that  of  Plato 
and  the  Hindu  philosophers.  These  divide  man  into  a  pure 
celestial  soul  and  an  impure  earthly  body  and  hold  that  the 
physical  life  is  tainted  by  sin,  while  the  spirit  is  divine  only 
in  so  far  as  it  frees  itself  from  its  prison  house  of  flesh.  Ju¬ 
daism,  on  the  other  hand,  emphasizes  the  unified  character 
of  man,  by  which  he  can  bend  all  his  faculties  and  functions 
to  a  godlike  mastery  over  the  material  world.  This  appears 
first  in  his  upright  posture  and  heavenward  glance,  which 
proclaim  him  master  over  the  whole  animal  world  cowering 
before  him  in  lowly  dread.  His  whole  bodily  structure  cor¬ 
responds  to  this,  with  its  constant  growth,  its  wondrous 
symmetry,  and  the  unique  flexibility  of  the  hands,  with  which 
he  can  perform  ever  new  and  greater  achievements.  Above 
all,  we  see  the  nobility  of  man  in  his  high  forehead  and  reced¬ 
ing  jaw,  which  contrast  so  strikingly  with  the  structure  of 
most  animals  and  even  with  many  of  the  lower  races.  Indeed, 
primitive  man  could  scarcely  imagine  a  nobler  pattern  by 
which  to  model  his  deity  than  the  figure  of  a  man. 

1  Lev.  R.  XXXIV,  3.  2  Ab.  d.  R.  N.  XXXI. 

P 


210 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


7.  In  fact,  the  Biblical  verse,  “God  created  man  after  the 
image  of  the  divine  beings”  ( elohim ),  was  originally  taken 
literally,  in  the  sense  that  angels  posed  as  models  for  the 
creation  of  man.1  The  phrase  was  referred  to  the  spiritual, 
god-like  nature  of  man  only  when  the  difference  between 
material  and  spiritual  things  became  better  understood,  and 
man  obtained  a  clearer  knowledge  of  himself.  Man  grew  to 
feel  that  his  craving  for  the  perfect,  whether  in  the  field  of 
truth  and  right,  or  of  beauty,  is  the  force  which  lifts  him,  in 
spite  of  all  his  limitations,  into  the  realm  of  the  divine.  His 
soaring  imagination  and  ceaseless  longing  for  perfection  disclose 
before  his  eyes  a  partial  vista  of  the  infinite.  The  human 
spirit  carries  mortal  man  above  the  confines  of  time  and  space 
into  those  boundless  realms  where  God  resides  in  lonely 
majesty.2 

Man  did  not  emanate  perfect  from  the  hand  of  the  Creator, 
but  ready  for  an  ever  greater  perfection.  Being  the  last  of 
all  created  beings,  as  the  Midrash  says,  he  can  be  put  to 
shame  by  the  smallest  insect,  which  is  prior  to  him.  Yet 
before  the  beginning  of  creation  a  light  shone  upon  his  spirit 
that  has  illumined  his  achievements  through  untold  genera¬ 
tions.3 

8.  The  resemblance  of  man  to  God  is  attributed  also  to 
his  free  will  and  self-consciousness,  by  which  he  claims  moral 
dignity  and  mastery  over  all  things.4  Still,  all  these  superior 
qualities  which  we  call  human  are  not  ready-made  endow¬ 
ments,  free  gifts  bestowed  by  God;  they  are  simply  poten- 

1  See  Jubilees  XV,  27 ;  comp.  Gen.  R.  VIII,  7-9 ;  Ab.  d.  R.  N.,  ed.  Schechter, 
P-  153. 

2  See  Jellinek :  Bezelem  Elohim;  Philippson,  1.  c.,  II,  58-72 ;  Dillmann,  1.  c., 
325.  The  words  of  Plato  (State,  X,  613,  and  Thecetetos,  176),  “Man  should 
strive  for  God-likeness  through  virtue,  and  be  holy,  righteous  and  wise  like  the 
Deity,”  may  have  influenced  the  ethical  interpretation  of  the  Biblical  term. 

3  Gen.  R.  VIII,  1. 

4  See  Gen.  I,  26 ;  Comm,  of  Rashi,  Saadia,  Ibn  Ezra,  Nahmanides,  and  Ob. 
Sforno. 


MAN’S  PLACE  IN  CREATION 


211 


tialities  which  may  be  gradually  developed.  Man  must 
strive  to  attain  the  place  destined  for  him  in  the  scheme  of 
creation  by  the  exertion  of  his  own  will  and  the  unfolding  of 
the  powers  that  lie  within  him.  The  impulse  toward  self- 
perfection,  which  is  constantly  stimulated  by  the  desire  to 
overcome  obstacles  and  to  extend  one’s  power,  knowledge, 
and  possessions,  forms  the  kernel  of  the  divine  in  man.  This 
is  the  “spirit  in  man,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty,  that 
giveth  them  understanding.”  1  Thus  the  teaching  of  modern 
science,  of  the  gradual  ascent  of  man  through  all  the  stages 
of  animal  life,  does  not  impair  the  lofty  position  in  creation 
which  Judaism  has  assigned  him.  Plant  and  animal  are  what 
they  have  always  been,  children  of  the  earth ;  man  with  his 
heaven-aspiring  soul  is  the  image  of  his  Creator,  a  child  of 
God.  Giver  of  name  and  purpose  to  all  things  about  him, 
he  ranks  above  the  angels ;  he  “marches  on  while  all  the  rest 
stand  still.”  2 

1  Job  XXXII,  8.  2  Zach.  Ill,  7 ;  see  comm. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV 

The  Dual  Nature  oe  Man 

1.  According  to  Jewish  doctrines,  man  is  formed  by  a 
union  of  two  natures :  the  flesh,  which  he  shares  with  all  the 
animals,  and  the  spirit,  which  renders  him  a  child  of  God. 
The  former  is  rooted  in  the  earth  and  is  earthward  bent ;  the 
latter  is  a  “ breath  from  God”  and  strives  to  unfold  the  divine 
in  man  until  he  attains  the  divine  image.  This  discord  brings 
a  tremendous  internal  conflict,  leading  from  one  historic 
stage  to  another,  achieving  ever  higher  things,  intellectual, 
moral,  and  spiritual,  until  at  last  the  whole  earth  is  to  be  a 
divine  kingdom,  the  dwelling-place  of  truth,  goodness,  and 
holiness. 

2.  According  to  the  Biblical  view  man  consists  of  flesh 
( basar )  and  spirit  ( ruaJi ).  The  term  flesh  is  used  im¬ 
partially  of  all  animals,  hence  the  Biblical  term  “all  flesh”  1 
includes  both  man  and  beast.  The  body  becomes  a  living 
being  by  being  penetrated  with  the  “breath  of  life”  (ruah 
hayim ),  at  whose  departure  the  living  body  turns  at  once  into 
a  lifeless  clod.  This  breath  of  life  is  possessed  by  the  animal 
as  well  as  by  man,  as  both  of  them  breathe  the  air.  Hence 
in  ancient  tongues  “breath”  and  “soul”  are  used  as  synonyms, 
as  the  Hebrew  nefesh  and  neshamah ,  the  Latin  anima  and 
spiritus,  the  Greek  pneuma  and  psyche.  A  different  primitive 
belief  connected  the  soul  with  the  blood,  noting  that  man  or 
beast  dies  when  the  hot  life-blood  flows  out  of  the  body,  so 
that  we  read  in  the  Bible,  “the  blood  is  the  soul.”  2  In  this 

1  Gen.  VI,  12,  iq.  2  Gen.  IX,  21 ;  Lev.  XVII,  11,  14. 


212 


THE  DUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN 


213 


the  soul  is  identified  with  the  life,  while  the  word  ruah ,  de¬ 
noting  the  moving  force  of  the  air,  is  used  more  in  the  sense 
of  spirit  or  soul  as  distinct  from  the  body. 

Thus  both  man  and  beast  possess  a  soul,  nefesh.  The  soul 
of  man  is  merely  distinguished  by  its  richer  endowment,  its 
manifold  faculties  by  which  it  is  enabled  to  move  forward  to 
higher  things.  Thus  the  animal  soul  is  bound  for  all  time  to 
its  destined  place,  while  the  divine  spirit  in  man  makes  him 
a  free  creative  personality,  self-conscious  and  god-like.  For 
this  reason  the  creation  of  man  forms  a  special  act  in  the 
account  in  Genesis.  Both  the  plant  and  animal  worlds  rose 
at  God’s  bidding  from  the  soil  of  mother  earth,  and  the  soul 
of  the  animal  is  limited  in  origin  and  goal  by  the  earthly 
sphere.  The  creation  of  man  inaugurates  a  new  world.  God 
is  described  as  forming  the  body  of  man  from  the  dust  of  the 
earth  and  then  breathing  His  spirit  into  the  lifeless  frame, 
endowing  it  with  both  fife  and  personality.  The  whole  man, 
both  body  and  soul,  has  thus  the  potentiality  of  a  higher  and 
nobler  life. 

3.  Accordingly  Scripture  does  not  have  a  thorough-going 
dualism,  of  a  carnal  nature  which  is  sinful  and  a  spiritual 
nature  which  is  pure.  We  are  not  told  that  man  is  composed 
of  an  impure  earthly  body  and  a  pure  heavenly  soul,  but  in¬ 
stead  that  the  whole  of  man  is  permeated  by  the  spirit  of  God. 
Both  body  and  soul  are  endowed  with  the  power  of  con¬ 
tinuous  self-improvement.  In  order  to  see  the  great  su¬ 
periority  of  the  Jewish  view  over  the  heathen  one,  we  need 
only  study  the  old  Babylonian  legend  preserved  by  Berosus. 
In  this  the  deity  made  man  by  mixing  earth  with  some  of  its 
own  life-blood,  thus  endowing  the  human  soul  with  higher 
powers.  In  the  Bible  the  difference  between  man  and  beast 
does  not  He  in  the  blood,  although  the  blood  is  still  thought 
to  be  the  life.  The  distinction  of  man  is  in  the  spirit,  ruah, 
which  emanates  from  God  and  penetrates  both  body  and  soul, 


214 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


lifting  the  whole  man  into  a  higher  realm  and  making  him  a 
free  moral  personality. 

Still  the  Bible  makes  no  clear  distinction  between  the  three 
terms,  nefesh,  neshamah ,  and  ruah.1  Philo  first  distinguished 
between  three  different  substances  of  the  soul,  but  his  theory 
was  the  Platonic  one,  for  which  he  simply  used  the  three 
Biblical  names.2  The  Jewish  philosophers  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
beginning  with  Saadia,  took  the  same  attitude,  even  though 
they  realized  more  or  less  that  the  division  of  the  soul  into 
three  substances  has  no  Scriptural  warrant.3  In  rabbinical 
literature  this  division  is  scarcely  known,  and  there  is  little 
mention  of  either  the  animal  soul,  nefesh ,  or  the  vital  spark, 
ruah.  Instead  the  word  neshamah  is  used  for  the  human 
psyche  as  the  higher  spiritual  substance,  and  the  contrast  to 
it  is  not  the  Biblical  basar,  flesh,  but  the  Aramaic  guph ,  body.4 
This  bears  a  trace  of  Persian  dualism,  with  its  strong  contrast 
between  the  earthly  body  and  the  heavenly  soul. 

4.  In  fact,  rabbinical  Judaism  does  not  recognize  any 
relationship  between  the  soul  of  the  animal  and  that  of  man, 
but  claims  that  man  has  a  special  type  of  existence.  The 
Midrash  tells  5  that  God  formed  Adam’s  body  so  as  to  reach 
from  earth  to  heaven,  and  then  caused  the  soul  to  enter  it. 
In  the  same  way  God  implants  the  soul  into  the  embryo  before 
its  birth  and  while  in  the  womb.  Before  this  the  soul  had  a  bird¬ 
like  existence  in  an  immense  celestial  cage  {guph  =  colum¬ 
barium ),  and  when  it  leaves  the  body  in  death,  it  again  takes 

1  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  355-361 ;  Davidson,  1.  c.,  182-203 ;  comp.  Gen.  R. 
XIV,  11,  where  these  three  terms  are  given,  and  also  yehidah ,  Ps.  XXII,  21; 
XXXV,  17,  and  hayah ,  Ps.  XCLIII,  3 ;  Job  XXXIII,  1. 

2  De  Leg.  Alleg.  Ill,  38. 

3  See  Horovitz :  D.  Psychologie  Saadias;  Scheyer :  D.  psycholog.  System  d. 
Maimonides;  Cassel’s  Cuzari,  p.  382-400;  Husik,  1.  c.,  IX,  41;  and  see  also 
Index:  Soul. 

4  Sanh.  91  a,  b;  Nid.  30  b-31  b;  Sifre  Deut.  306,  ref.  to  Deut.  XXXII, 
1 ;  Lev.  IV,  5-8. 

6  Ab.  Z.  5  a;  Gen.  R.  VIII,  1. 


THE  DUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN 


215 


its  flight  toward  heaven.  There  its  conduct  on  earth  will 
reap  a  reward  in  the  garden  of  eternal  bliss  or  a  punishment 
in  the  infernal  regions.  The  belief  in  the  preexistence  of  the 
soul  was  shared  by  the  rabbis  with  the  apocryphal  authors 
and  Philo.1 

However,  rabbinical  Judaism  never  followed  Philo  so  far 
in  the  footsteps  of  Plato  as  to  consider  the  body  or  the  flesh 
the  source  of  impurity  and  sin,  or  “the  prison  house  of  the 
soul.”  This  view  is  fundamental  in  the  Paulinian  system  of 
other- worldliness.  For  the  rabbis  the  sensuous  desire  of  the 
body  ( yezer )  is  a  tendency  toward  sin,  but  never  a  compul¬ 
sion.  The  weakness  of  the  flesh  may  cause  a  straying  from 
the  right  path,  but  man  can  turn  the  desires  of  the  flesh  into 
the  service  of  the  good.  He  can  always  assert  his  divine 
power  of  freedom  by  opposing  the  evil  inclination  ( yezer  ha 
ra )  with  the  good  inclination  ( yezer  ha  tob)  to  overcome 
it.2  In  fact,  the  rabbis  are  so  far  from  acknowledging  the 
existence  of  a  compulsion  of  evil  in  the  flesh,  that  they  point 
to  the  history  of  great  men  as  proof  that  the  highest  charac¬ 
ters  have  the  mightiest  passions  in  their  souls,  and  that  their 
greatness  consists  in  the  will  by  which  they  have  learned  to 
control  themselves.3 

5.  In  the  light  of  modern  science  the  whole  theory  separat¬ 
ing  body  and  soul  falls  to  the  ground,  and  the  one  connect¬ 
ing  man  more  closely  with  the  animal  world  is  revived.  In 
this  connection  we  think  of  the  idea  which  medieval  thinkers 
adopted  from  Plato  and  Aristotle,  that  there  is  a  substance  of 
souls  —  nefesh  hahiyonith  —  which  forms  the  basic  life- 

1  B.  Wisdom,  VIII,  20;  Slav.  Enoch  XXIII,  5;  Philo  I,  15,  32;  II,  356; 
comp.  Bousset,  1.  c.,  p.  508  f. 

2  Gen.  VI,  5;  VIII,  21;  B.  Sira  XV,  14;  XVII,  31;  XXI,  n;  Ber.  5  a; 
Kid.  30  b;  Suk.  52  a,  b;  Shab.  152  b;  Eccl.  R.  XII,  7;  comp.  F.  Ch.  Porter: 
“The  Yezer  ha  Ra”  in  Biblical  and  Semitic  Studies ,  93-156;  Bousset,  1.  c., 
462  f. 

3  Suk.  52  a,  b. 


21 6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


force  of  men  and  animals.  Physiology  and  psychology  re¬ 
veal  the  interaction  and  dependence  of  body  and  soul  in  the 
lowest  forms  of  animal  life  as  well  as  in  the  higher  forms,  in¬ 
cluding  man.  The  beginnings  of  the  human  mind  must  be 
sought  once  for  all  in  the  animal,  just  as  the  origin  of  the 
animal  reaches  back  into  the  plant  world.  Indeed,  Aris¬ 
totle  anticipates  the  discoveries  of  modern  science,  placing 
the  vegetative  and  animal  souls  beside  the  spirit  of  man. 
Thus  motion  and  sensibility  form  the  lower  boundary-line 
of  the  animal  kingdom,  and  self-consciousness  and  self-deter¬ 
mination  are  the  criteria  of  humanity. 

Yet  this  very  self-conscious  freedom  which  forms  man’s 
personality,  his  ego ,  lifts  him  into  a  realm  of  free  action  under 
higher  motives,  transcending  nature’s  law  of  necessity,  and 
therefore  not  falling  within  the  domain  of  natural  science. 
Dust-born  man,  notwithstanding  his  earthly  limitations,  in 
spite  of  his  kinship  to  mollusk  and  mammal,  enters  the  realm 
of  the  divine  spirit.  In  the  Midrash  the  rabbis  remark  that 
man  shares  the  nature  of  both  animals  and  angels.1  Admit¬ 
ting  this,  we  feel  that  he  is  tied  neither  to  heaven  nor  to  the 
earth,  but  free  to  lift  himself  above  all  creatures  or  sink  below 
them  all. 

6.  Endowed  with  this  dual  nature,  man  stands  in  the  very 
center  of  the  universe,  and  God  esteems  him  “equal  in 
value  to  the  entire  creation,”  as  Rabbi  Nehemiah  says  of  a 
single  human  soul.2  Rabbi  Akiba  stresses  the  image  of  God 
in  humanity  when  he  says:  “Beloved  is  man,  for  he  is  cre¬ 
ated  in  God’s  image,  and  it  was  a  special  token  of  love  that 
he  became  conscious  of  it.  Beloved  is  Israel,  for  they  are 
called  the  children  of  God,  and  it  was  a  special  token  of  love 
that  they  became  conscious  of  it.”  3  The  Midrash  compares 
man  to  God  in  exquisite  manner:  “Just  as  God  permeates 
the  world  and  carries  it,  unseen  yet  seeing  all,  enthroned 

1  Gen.  R.  VIII,  n.  2  Ab.  d.  R.  N.  XXXI.  *  Aboth  m>  l8. 


THE  DUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN 


217 


within  as  the  Only  One,  the  Perfect,  and  the  Pure,  yet  never 
to  be  reached  or  found  out ;  so  the  soul  penetrates  and  carries 
the  body,  as  the  one  pure  and  luminous  being  which  sees  and 
holds  all  things,  while  itself  unseen  and  unreached.”  1  The 
conception  of  the  soul  is  here  divested  of  every  sensory  at¬ 
tribute,  and  portrayed  as  a  divine  force  within  the  body.  This 
conception,  which  was  accepted  by  the  medieval  philosophers, 
is  thoroughly  consistent  with  our  view  of  the  world.  The 
soul  it  is  which  mirrors  both  the  material  and  spiritual  worlds 
and  holds  them  in  mutual  relation  through  its  own  power. 
It  is  at  the  same  time  swayed  upward  and  downward  by  its 
various  cravings,  heavenly  and  earthly,  and  this  very  tension 
constitutes  the  dual  nature  of  the  human  soul. 

1  Ber.  10  a;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  CIII,  4-5. 


CHAPTER  XXXV 


The  Origin  and  Destiny  of  Man 

1.  Of  all  created  beings  man  alone  possesses  the  power  of 
self-determination ;  he  assigns  his  destiny  to  himself.  While 
he  endeavors  to  find  the  object  of  all  other  things  and  even  of 
his  own  existence  in  the  world,  he  finds  his  own  purpose  within 
himself.  Star  and  stone,  plant  and  beast  fulfill  their  purpose 
in  the  whole  plan  of  creation  by  their  existence  and  varied 
natures,  and  are  accordingly  called  “good”  as  they  are. 
Man,  however,  realizes  that  he  must  accomplish  his  purpose 
by  his  manner  of  life  and  the  voluntary  exertion  of  his  own 
powers.  He  is  “good”  only  as  far  as  he  fulfills  his  destiny 
on  earth.  He  is  not  good  by  mere  existence,  but  by  his 
conduct.  Not  what  he  is,  but  what  he  ought  to  be  gives 
value  to  his  being.  He  is  good  or  bad  according  to  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  his  will  and  acts  by  the  imperative:  “I  ought”  or 
“I  ought  not,”  which  comes  to  him  in  his  conscience,  the  voice 
of  God  calling  to  his  soul. 

2.  The  problem  of  human  destiny  is  answered  by  Judaism 
with  the  idea  that  God  is  the  ideal  and  pattern  of  all  morality. 
The  answer  given,  then,  is  “To  walk  in  the  ways  of  God,  to 
be  righteous  and  just,”  as  He  is.1  The  prophet  Micah  ex¬ 
pressed  it  in  the  familiar  words:  “It  has  been  told  thee,  O 
man,  what  is  good,  and  what  the  Lord  doth  require  of  thee : 
Only  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God.”  2  Accordingly  the  Bible  considers  men  of 
the  older  generations  the  prototypes  of  moral  conduct,  “right- 

1  Gen.  XVIII,  19;  Deut.  VIII,  6;  X,  12;  XXXII,  4. 

218 


2  Micah  VI,  8. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN 


219 


eous  men  who  walked  with  God.”  Such  men  were  Enoch, 
Noah,  and  above  all  Abraham,  to  whom  God  said:  “I  am 
God  Almighty ;  walk  before  Me,  and  be  thou  whole-hearted. 
And  I  will  make  My  covenant  between  thee  and  Me.”  1 
The  rabbis  singled  out  Abraham  as  the  type  of  a  perfect  man 
on  account  of  his  love  of  righteousness  and  peace ;  contrasting 
him  with  Adam  who  sinned,  they  beheld  him  as  “the  great 
man  among  the  heroes  of  the  ancient  times.”  They  even 
considered  him  the  type  of  true  humanity,  in  whom  the 
object  of  creation  was  attained.2 

3.  This  moral  consciousness,  however,  which  tells  man  to 
walk  in  the  ways  of  God  and  be  perfect,  is  also  the  source  of 
shame  and  remorse.  With  such  an  ideal  man  must  feel  con¬ 
stantly  that  he  falls  short,  that  he  is  not  what  he  ought  to  be. 
Only  the  little  child,  who  knows  nothing  as  yet  of  good  and 
evil,  can  preserve  the  joy  of  life  unmarred.  Similarly,  primi¬ 
tive  man,  being  ignorant  of  guilt,  could  pass  his  days  without 
care  or  fear.  But  as  soon  as  he  becomes  conscious  of  guilt, 
discord  enters  his  soul,  and  he  feels  as  if  he  had  been  driven 
from  the  presence  of  God. 

This  feeling  is  allegorized  in  the  Paradise  legend.  The 
garden  of  bliss,  half  earthly,  half  heavenly,  which  is  else¬ 
where  called  the  “mountain  of  God,”3  a  place  of  wondrous 
trees,  beasts,  and  precious  stones,  whence  the  four  great  rivers 
flow,  is  the  abode  of  divine  beings.  The  first  man  and  woman 
could  dwell  in  it  only  so  long  as  they  lived  in  harmony  with 
God  and  His  commandments.  As  soon  as  the  tempter  in 
the  shape  of  the  serpent  called  forth  a  discord  between  the 
divine  will  and  human  desire,  man  could  no  longer  enjoy 
celestial  bliss,  but  must  begin  the  dreary  earthly  life,  with  its 
burdens  and  trials. 

1  Gen.  V,  22;  VI,  9;  XVII,  1-2. 

2  Gen.  R.  XII,  8 ;  XIV,  6,  ref.  to  Josh.  XIV,  15. 

3  Ezek.  XXVIII,  14. 


220 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


4.  This  story  of  the  fall  of  the  first  man  is  an  allegorical 
description  of  the  state  of  childlike  innocence  which  man 
must  leave  behind  in  order  to  attain  true  strength  of  char¬ 
acter.  It  is  based  upon  a  view  common  to  all  antiquity  of  a 
descent  of  the  race ;  that  is  :  first  came  the  golden  age,  when 
man  led  a  life  of  ease  and  pleasure  in  company  with  the  gods ; 
then  an  age  of  silver,  another  of  brass,  and  finally  the  iron  age, 
with  its  toil  and  bitter  woe.  Thus  did  evil  deeds  and  wild 
passions  increase  among  men.  This  view  fails  utterly  to 
recognize  the  value  of  labor  as  a  civilizing  force  making  for 
progress,  and  it  contradicts  the  modern  historical  view.  The 
prophets  of  Israel  placed  the  golden  age  at  the  end,  not  the 
beginning  of  history,  so  that  the  purpose  of  mankind  was  to 
establish  a  heavenly  kingdom  upon  the  earth.  In  fact,  the  fall 
of  man  is  not  referred  to  anywhere  in  Scripture  and  never  be¬ 
came  a  doctrine,  or  belief,  of  Judaism.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Hellenistic  expounders  of  the  Bible  take  it  for  granted  that 
the  story  is  an  allegory,  and  the  book  of  Proverbs  under¬ 
stands  the  tree  of  life  symbolically,  in  the  verse:  “She  (the 
Torah)  is  a  tree  of  life  to  them  that  lay  hold  upon  her.”  1 

5.  Still  the  rabbis  in  Talmud  and  Midrash  accepted  the 
legend  in  good  faith  as  historical 2  and  took  it  literally  as  did 
the  great  English  poet : 

“  The  fruit 

Of  that  forbidden  tree  whose  mortal  taste 
Brought  death  into  the  world,  and  all  our  woe, 

With  loss  of  Eden.” 

In  fact,  they  even  followed  the  Persian  dualism  with  its  evil 
principle,  the  primeval  serpent,  or  the  Babylonian  legend  of 
the  sea-monster  Tiamat,  and  regarded  the  serpent  in  Paradise 
as  a  demon.  He  was  identified  with  Satan,  the  arch-fiend, 
and  later  with  evil  in  general,  the  yezer  ha  ra .3  Thus  the 

1  Prov.  Ill,  18.  2  Gen.  R.  XVI,  10;  Shab.  55  b.  3  B.  B.  15  a. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN 


221 


belief  arose  that  the  poisonous  breath  of  the  serpent  infected 
all  generations,  causing  death  even  of  the  sinless.1  The 
apocrypha  also  held  that  the  envy  of  Satan  brought  death 
into  the  world.2  This  prepared  for  the  dismal  church  doc¬ 
trine  of  original  sin,  the  basis  of  Paul’s  teachings,  which  de¬ 
manded  a  blood  atonement  for  curse-laden  humanity,  and 
found  it  after  the  pagan  pattern  in  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of 
a  dying  god.3 

Against  such  perversion  of  the  simple  Paradise  story  the 
sound  common  sense  of  the  Jewish  people  rebelled.  While 
the  early  Talmudists  occasionally  mention  the  poisoning  of 
the  human  race  by  the  serpent,  they  find  an  antidote  for  the 
Jewish  people  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham  or  that  of  Sinai.4  ■> 
One  cannot,  however,  discern  the  least  indication  of  belief  in  , 
original  sin,  either  as  inherent  in  the  human  race  or  inherited 
by  them.  Nor  does  the  liturgy  express  any  such  idea,  espe¬ 
cially  for  the  Day  of  Penitence,  when  it  would  certainly  be  men¬ 
tioned  if  the  conception  found  any  place  in  Jewish  doctrine.  On 
the  contrary,  the  prevailing  thought  of  Judaism  is  that  of  Deu¬ 
teronomy  and  Ezekiel,5  that  “Each  man  dies  by  his  own  sin,” 
that  every  soul  must  bear  only  the  consequences  of  his  own 
deeds.  The  rabbis  even  state  that  no  man  dies  unless  he  has 
brought  it  upon  himself  by  his  own  sin,  and  mention  especially 
certain  exceptions  to  this  rule,  such  as  the  four  saintly  men 
who  died  without  sin,6  or  certain  children  whose  death  was 
due  to  the  sin  of  their  parents.7  They  could  never  admit 
that  the  whole  human  race  was  so  corrupted  by  the  sin  of  the 
first  man  that  it  is  still  in  a  state  of  sinfulness. 

6.  Of  course,  the  rabbinical  schools  took  literally  the  Bib¬ 
lical  story  of  the  fall  of  man  and  laid  the  chief  blame  upon 

1  Shab.  146  a;  Yeb.  103  b;  Ab.  Zar.  22  b;  Shab.  55  b. 

2  B.  Wisdom,  II,  24.  3  Romans  V,  12  f. 

4  Shab.  146  a.  6  Deut.  XXIV,  16;  Ezek.  XVIII,  4. 

6  Shab.  55  a,  b.  7  Shab.  32  b. 


222 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


woman,  who  fell  a  prey  to  the  wiles  of  the  serpent.  This  is 
done  even  by  Ben  Sira,  who  says:  “With  woman  came  the 
beginning  of  sin,  and  through  her  we  all  must  die.”  1  So  the 
Talmud  says  that  due  to  woman,  man,  the  crown,  light,  and 
life  of  creation,  lost  his  purity,  his  luster,  and  his  immortality.2 
The  Biblical  verse,  “They  did  eat,  and  the  eyes  of  them  both 
were  opened,”  is  interpreted  by  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai 
and  Rabbi  Akiba  as  “They  saw  the  dire  consequences  of  their 
sin  upon  all  coming  generations.”  3  The  fall  of  man  is  treated 
most  elaborately  in  the  same  spirit  in  the  two  apocalyptic 
books  written  after  the  destruction  of  the  Second  Temple, 
the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  and  the  IV  Book  of  Esdras.4  The 
incompatibility  of  divine  love  with  the  sufferings  of  man 
and  of  the  Jewish  people  on  account  of  the  sin  of  the  first 
man  is  solved  by  an  appeal  to  the  final  Day  of  Judgment, 
and  the  striking  remark  is  added  that,  after  all,  “each  is  his 
own  Adam  and  is  held  responsible  for  his  own  sin.”  We 
cannot  deny  that  these  two  books  contain  much  that  is  near 
the  Paulinian  view  of  original  sin.  It  seems,  however,  that 
the  Jewish  teachers  were  put  on  their  guard  by  the  emphasis 
of  this  pessimistic  dogma  by  the  nascent  Church,  and  did 
their  best  to  give  a  different  aspect  to  the  story  of  the  first 
sin.  Thus  they  say:  “If  Adam  had  but  shown  repentance, 
and  done  penance  after  he  committed  his  sin,  he  would  have 
been  spared  the  death  penalty.”  5  Moreover,  they  actually 
represent  Adam  and  Eve  as  patterns  of  repentant  sinners, 
who  underwent  severe  penance  and  thus  obtained  the  promise 
of  divine  mercy  and  also  of  final  resurrection.6  Instead  of 
transmitting  the  heritage  of  sin  to  coming  generations,  the 

1  B.  Sira  XXV,  24.  2  Yer.  Shab.  II,  5  b. 

3  Gen.  R.  XIX,  10,  ref.  to  Gen.  Ill,  6-7. 

4  Apoc.  Baruch  XXIII,  4 ;  XL VIII,  42  f. ;  LVI,  6 ;  and  especially  LIV, 
14-19;  IV  Esdras  III,  7;  VII,  11,  118. 

6  Pesik.  160  b;  Num.  R.  XIII,  5. 

6  P.  d.  R.  El.,  XX;  comp.  Adam  and  Eve,  I;  Erub.  18  b. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN 


223 


first  man  is  for  them  an  example  of  repentance.  So  do  the 
Haggadists  tell  us  quite  characteristically  that  God  merely 
wanted  to  test  the  first  man  by  an  insignificant  command, 
so  that  the  first  representative  of  the  human  race  should  show 
whether  he  was  worthy  to  enter  eternal  life  in  his  mortal  garb, 
as  did  Enoch  and  Elijah.  As  he  could  not  stand  the  test, 
he  forfeited  the  marks  of  divine  rank,  his  celestial  radiance, 
his  gigantic  size,  and  his  power  to  overcome  death.1  Ob¬ 
viously  the  Biblical  story  was  embellished  with  material  from 
the  Persian  legend  of  the  fall  of  Yima  or  Djemshid,  the  first 
man,  from  superhuman  greatness  because  of  his  sin,2  but  it 
was  always  related  frankly  as  a  legend,  and  could  never  in¬ 
fluence  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  fall  of  man. 

7.  Judaism  rejects  completely  the  belief  in  hereditary  sin 
and  the  corruption  of  the  flesh.  The  Biblical  verse,  “God 
made  man  upright ;  but  they  have  sought  out  many  inven¬ 
tions,  ”  3  is  explained  in  the  Midrash:  “Upright  and  just  as 
is  God,  He  made  man  after  His  likeness  in  order  that  he  might 
strive  after  righteousness,  and  unfold  ever  more  his  god-like 
nature,  but  men  in  their  dissensions  have  marred  the  divine 
image.” 4  With  reference  to  another  verse  in  Ecclesiastes  : 5 
“The  dust  returneth  unto  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit 
returneth  unto  God  who  gave  it,”  the  rabbis  teach  “Pure  as 
the  soul  is  when  entering  upon  its  earthly  career,  so  can  man 
return  it  to  his  Maker.”  6  Therefore  the  pious  Jew  begins 
his  daily  prayers  with  the  words:  “My  God,  the  soul  which 
Thou  hast  given  me  is  pure.”  7  The  life-long  battle  with 

1  Gen.  R.  XII,  5 ;  XIX,  11 ;  XXI,  4  f. ;  comp.  Shab.  55  b. 

2  See  Windishman  :  Zoroastrische  Studien,  p.  27  f. 

3  Eccl.  VII,  29.  4  Tanh.  Yelamdenu  to  Gen.  Ill,  22. 

5  Eccl.  XII,  7.  6  Shab.  152  b. 

7  Ber.  80  a.  The  rabbis  did  not  have  the  belief  that  the  body  is  morally 

impure  and  therefore  the  seat  of  the  yezer  ha  ra,  as  is  stated  by  Weber,  1.  c.,  228  f. 

See  Potter,  1.  c.,  98-107 ;  Schechter :  Aspects ,  242-292.  It  is  wrong  also  to 
explain  Ps.  LI,  7,  “  Behold  I  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my 


224 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


sin  begins  only  at  the  age  when  sensual  desire,  “the  evil  in¬ 
clination/  ’  awakens  in  youth ;  then  the  state  of  primitive 
innocence  makes  way  for  the  sterner  contest  for  manly  virtue 
and  strength  of  character. 

8.  In  fact,  the  whole  Paradise  story  could  never  be  made 
the  basis  for  a  dogma.  The  historicity  of  the  serpent  is  de¬ 
nied  by  Saadia ; 1  the  rabbis  transfer  Paradise  with  the  tree 
of  life  to  heaven  as  a  reward  for  the  future ; 2  and  both 
Nahmanides  the  mystic  and  Maimonides  the  philosopher 
give  it  an  allegorical  meaning.3  On  the  other  hand,  the  Hag- 
gadic  teachers  perceived  the  simple  truth  that  a  life  of  in¬ 
dolence  in  Paradise  would  incapacitate  man  for  his  cultural 
task,  and  that  the  toils  and  struggles  inflicted  on  man  as  a 
curse  are  in  reality  a  blessing.  Therefore  they  laid  special 
stress  on  the  Biblical  statement:  “He  put  man  into  the 
garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it.”  4  The  following 
parable  is  especially  suggestive:  “When  Adam  heard  the 
stern  sentence  passed :  ‘Thou  shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field/ 
he  burst  into  tears,  and  said  :  ‘Am  I  and  my  ass  to  eat  out  of 
the  same  manger?’  Then  came  another  sentence  from  God 
to  reassure  him,  ‘In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat 
bread/  and  forthwith  he  became  aware  that  man  shall  attain 
a  higher  dignity  by  dint  of  labor.”  5  Indeed,  labor  transforms 
the  wilderness  into  a  garden  and  the  earth  into  a  habitation 
worthy  of  the  son  of  God.  The  “book  of  the  generations  of 

mother  conceive  me,”  as  inherited  sinfulness,  as  Delitzsch  and  other  Christian 
commentators  have  done,  following  Ibn  Ezra,  who  refers  this  to  Eve,  the 
mother  of  all  men.  The  correct  interpretation  is  given  by  R.  Ahha  in  Lev.  R. 
XIV,  5 ;  “Every  sexual  act  is  the  work  of  sensuality,  the  Yezer  ha  ra .”  Comp. 
Yoma  69  b.  Needless  to  say  that  Hosea  VI,  7 ;  Isa.  XLIII,  37 ;  Job  XXXI,  33 
do  not  refer  to  the  sin  of  Adam. 

1  See  Ibn  Ezra  to  Gen.  Ill,  1. 

2  See  Taan.  10  a;  Ber.  34  b;  D.  comp.  Enoch  XXIX-XXXII ;  Seder  Gan 
Eden ,  in  Jellinek,  Beth  ha  Midrash,  II,  III. 

3  Moreh,  II,  30;  Nahmanides  to  Gen.  Ill,  1. 

4  Gen.  R.  XVI,  8,  ref.  to  Gen.  II,  15.  5  Pes.  hi  a;  Gen.  R.  XX,  24. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN 


225 


man”  which  begins  with  Adam  is  accordingly  not  the  history 
of  man’s  descent,  but  of  his  continuous  ascent,  of  ever  higher 
achievements  and  aspirations ;  it  is  not  a  record  of  the  fall 
of  man,  but  of  his  rise  from  age  to  age.  According  to  the 
Midrash  1  God  opened  before  Adam  the  book  with  the  deeds 
and  names  of  the  leading  spirits  of  all  the  coming  generations, 
showing  him  the  latent  powers  of  the  human  intellect  and 
soul.  The  phrase,  “the  fall  of  man,”  can  mean,  in  fact, 
only  the  inner  experience  of  the  individual,  who  does  fall  from 
his  original  idea  of  purity  and  divine  nobility  into  transgres¬ 
sion  and  sin.  It  cannot  refer  to  mankind  as  a  whole,  for  the 
human  race  has  never  experienced  a  fall,  nor  is  it  affected  by 
original  or  hereditary  sin. 

1  Seder  Olam  at  the  close ;  Gen.  R.  XXIV,  2. 


Q 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 


God’s  Spirit  in  Man 

1.  Man  is  placed  in  an  animal  world  of  dull  feelings,  of 
blind  and  crude  cravings.  Yet  his  clear  understanding, 
his  self-conscious  will  and  his  aspirations  forward  and  up¬ 
ward  lead  him  into  a  higher  world  where  he  obtains  insight 
into  the  order  and  unity  of  all  things.  By  the  spirit  of  God 
he  is  able  to  understand  material  things  and  grasp  them  in 
their  relations ;  thus  he  can  apply  all  his  knowledge  and 
creative  imagination  to  construct  a  world  of  ideals.  But  this 
world,  in  all  its  truth,  beauty  and  goodness,  is  still  limited 
and  finite,  a  feeble  shadow  of  the  infinite  world  of  God.  As 
the  Bible  says :  “The  spirit  of  man  is  the  lamp  of  the  Lord, 
searching  all  the  inward  parts.”  1  “It  is  a  spirit  in  man, 
and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty,  that  giveth  them  under¬ 
standing.”  2 

2.  According  to  the  Biblical  conception,  the  spirit  of  God 
endows  men  with  all  their  differing  capacities ;  it  gives  to 
one  man  wisdom  by  which  he  penetrates  into  the  causes  of 
existence  and  orders  facts  into  a  scientific  system ;  to  another 
the  seeing  eye  by  which  he  captures  the  secret  of  beauty  and 
creates  works  of  art;  and  to  a  third  the  genius  to  perceive 
the  ways  of  God,  the  laws  of  virtue,  that  he  may  become  a 
teacher  of  ethical  truth.  In  other  words,  the  spirit  of  God 
is  “the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit  of 
counsel  and  might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  the  fear  of 
the  Lord.”  3  It  works  upon  the  scientific  interest  of  the  in- 

1  Prov.  XX,  27.  2  Job  XXXII,  8.  3  Isa.  XI,  2. 

226 


GOD’S  SPIRIT  IN  MAN 


227 


vestigator,  the  imagination  of  the  artist  and  poet,  the  ethical 
and  social  sense  of  the  prophet,  teacher,  statesman,  and  law¬ 
giver.  Thus  their  high  and  holy  vision  of  the  divine  is  brought 
home  to  the  people  and  implanted  within  them  under  the  in¬ 
spiration  of  God.  In  commenting  upon  the  Biblical  verse, 
“  Wisdom  and  might  are  His  .  .  .  He  giveth  wisdom  to  the 
wise,  and  knowledge  to  them  that  know  understanding,”  1 
the  sages  wisely  remark,  “God  carefully  selects  those  who 
possess  wisdom  for  His  gift  of  wisdom.”  Even  as  a  musical 
instrument  must  be  attuned  for  the  finer  notes  that  it  may  have 
a  clear,  resonant  tone,  so  the  human  soul  must  be  made 
especially  susceptible  to  the  gifts  of  the  spirit  in  order  to  be 
capable  of  unfolding  them.  Thus  the  Talmud  records  an 
interesting  dialogue  on  this  very  passage  between  a  Roman 
matron  familiar  with  the  Scripture,  and  Rabbi  Jose  ben 
Halafta.  She  asked  sarcastically,  “Would  it  not  have  been 
more  generous  of  your  God  to  have  given  wisdom  to  those  that 
are  unwise  than  to  those  that  already  possess  it  ?  ”  Thereupon 
the  Jewish  master  replied,  “If  you  were  to  lend  a  precious 
ornament,  would  you  not  lend  it  to  one  who  was  able  to  make 
use  of  it?  So  God  gives  the  treasure  of  wisdom  to  the  wise, 
who  know  how  to  appreciate  and  develop  it,  not  to  the  unwise, 
who  do  not  know  its  value.”  2 

3.  Thus  the  diverse  gifts  of  the  divine  spirit  are  distributed 
differently  among  the  various  classes  and  tribes  of  men,  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  capacity  and  the  corresponding  task  which  is 
assigned  them  by  Providence.  The  divine  spark  is  set  aglow 
in  each  human  soul,  sometimes  feebly,  sometimes  brightly, 
but  it  blazes  high  only  in  the  privileged  personality  or  group. 
The  mutual  relationship  between  God  and  man  is  recognized 
by  the  Synagogue  in  the  Eighteen  Benedictions,  where  the 

1  Dan.  II,  20-21. 

2  Tanh.  Miketz  9 ;  comp.  Tanh.  Yelamdenu  Wayakhel,  where  the  story  is 
told  differently. 


228 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


one  directly  following  the  three  praises  of  God  is  devoted  to 
wisdom  and  knowledge:  “Thou  favorest  man  with  knowl¬ 
edge,  and  teachest  mortals  understanding.  So  favor  us  with 
knowledge,  understandiijg,  and  discernment  from  Thee. 
Blessed  art  Thou,  O  Lord,  gracious  Giver  of  knowledge.”  1 
This  petition,  remarks  Jehuda  ha  Levi,2  deserves  its  position 
as  first  among  these  prayers,  because  wisdom  brings  us  nearer 
to  God.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  Synagogue  prescribes 
a  special  benediction  at  the  sight  of  a  renowned  sage,  even  if 
he  is  not  a  Jew,  reading,  “Praised  be  He  who  has  imparted 
of  His  wisdom  to  flesh  and  blood.”3 

4.  Maimonides  holds  that  in  the  same  degree  as  a  man 
studies  the  works  of  God  in  nature,  he  will  be  filled  with 
longing  for  direct  knowledge  of  God  and  true  love  of  Him.4 
“Not  only  religion,  but  also  the  sciences  emanate  from  God, 
both  being  the  outcome  of  the  wisdom  which  God  imparts 
to  all  nations,”  — -  thus  wrote  a  sixteenth-century  rabbi, 
Loewe  ben  Bezalel  of  Prague,  known  usually  as  “the  eminent 
Rabbi  Loewe.”  5  The  men  of  the  Talmud  also  accord  the 
palm  in  certain  types  of  knowledge  to  heathen  sages,  and  did 
not  hesitate  to  ascribe  to  some  heathens  the  highest  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God  in  their  time.6  As  a  mystic  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  Isaac  ben  Latif,  says  :  “That  faith  is  the  most  per¬ 
fect  which  perceives  truth  most  fully,  since  God  is  the  source 
of  all  truth.”  7  Of  the  two  heads  of  the  Babylonian  acade¬ 
mies,  Rab  and  Samuel,  one  asserted  that  Moses  through  his 
prophetic  genius  reached  forty-nine  of  the  fifty  degrees  of 
the  divine  understanding  (as  the  fiftieth  is  reserved  for  God 
alone),  while  the  other  claimed  the  same  distinction  for  King 
Solomon  as  the  result  of  his  wisdom.8 

1  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  p.  46.  2  Cuzari  III,  19. 

8  Ber.  58  a;  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  p.  291.  4  Yesode  ha  Torah,  II,  2. 

6  Nethibot  Olam,  XIV.  6  Pes.  94  b. 

7  Shaare  Shamayim,  IV,  3.  8  R.  h.  Sh.  21b. 


GOD’S  SPIRIT  IN  MAN 


229 


5.  Thus  the  spirit  of  God  creates  in  man  both  consciously 
and  unconsciously  a  world  of  ideas,  which  proves  him  a  being 
of  a  higher  order  in  creation.  This  impulse  may  work  actively, 
searching,  investigating,  and  creating,  or  passively  as  an 
instrument  of  a  higher  power.  At  first  it  is  a  dim,  uncertain 
groping  of  the  spirit ;  then  the  mind  acquires  greater  lucidity 
by  which  it  illumines  the  dark  world ;  and,  as  one  question 
calls  for  the  other  and  one  thought  suggests  another,  the 
world  of  ideas  opens  up  as  a  well-connected  whole.  Thus 
man  creates  by  slow  steps  his  languages,  the  arts  and  sciences, 
ethics,  law  and  all  the  religions  with  their  varying  practices 
and  doctrines.  At  times  this  spirit  bursts  forth  with  greater 
vehemence  in  great  men,  geniuses  who  lift  the  race  with  one 
stroke  to  a  higher  level.  Such  men  may  say,  in  the  words 
of  David,  the  holy  singer :  “The  spirit  of  the  Lord  spoke  by 
me,  and  His  word  was  upon  my  tongue.”  1  They  may  re¬ 
peat  the  experience  of  Eliphaz  the  friend  of  Job : 

“  Now  a  word  was  secretly  brought  to  me, 

And  mine  ear  received  a  whisper  thereof. 

In  thoughts  from  the  visions  of  the  night, 

When  deep  sleep  falleth  on  men, 

Fear  came  upon  me,  and  trembling, 

And  all  my  bones  were  made  to  shake. 

Then  a  spirit  passed  before  my  face, 

That  made  the  hair  of  my  flesh  to  stand  up. 

It  stood  still,  but  I  could  not  discern  the  appearance  thereof ; 

A  form  was  before  mine  eyes ; 

I  heard  a  still  voice.” 2 

In  such  manner  men  of  former  ages  received  a  religious  reve¬ 
lation,  a  divine  message. 

6.  The  divine  spirit  always  selects  as  its  instruments  in¬ 
dividuals  with  special  endowments.  Still,  insight  into  his¬ 
tory  shows  that  these  men  must  needs  have  grown  from  the 

1 II  Sam.  XXIII,  2. 


2  Job  IV,  12-16. 


230 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


very  heart  of  their  own  people  and  their  own  age,  in  order 
that  they  might  hold  a  lofty  position  among  them  and  com¬ 
mand  attention  for  their  message.  However  far  the  people 
or  the  age  may  be  from  the  man  chosen  by  God,  the  multi¬ 
tude  must  feel  at  least  that  the  divine  spirit  speaks  through 
him,  or  works  within  him.  Or,  if  not  his  own  time,  then  a 
later  generation  must  respond  to  his  message,  lest  it  be  lost 
entirely  to  the  world. 

The  rabbis,  who  knew  nothing  of  laws  of  development 
for  the  human  mind,  assumed  that  the  first  man,  made  by 
God  Himself,  must  have  known  every  branch  of  knowledge 
and  skill,  that  the  spirit  of  God  must  have  been  most  vigorous 
in  him.1  They  therefore  believed  in  a  primeval  revelation, 
coeval  with  the  first  man.  Our  age,  with  its  tremendous 
emphasis  on  the  historical  view,  sees  the  divine  spirit  mani¬ 
fested  most  clearly  in  the  very  development  and  growth  of  all 
life,  social,  intellectual,  moral  and  spiritual,  proceeding 
steadily  toward  the  highest  of  all  goals.  With  this  empha¬ 
sis,  however,  on  process,  we  must  lay  stress  equally  on  the 
origin,  on  the  divine  impulse  or  initiative  in  this  historical 
development,  the  spirit  which  gives  direction  and  value  to 
the  whole. 

1  Gen.  R.  XXIV,  7;  comp.  Jubilees  III,  12. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII 


Free  Will  and  Moral  Responsibility 

1.  Judaism  has  ever  emphasized  the  freedom  of  the  will 
as  one  of  its  chief  doctrines.  The  dignity  and  greatness  of 
man  depends  largely  upon  his  freedom,  his  power  of  self- 
determination.  He  differs  from  the  lower  animals  in  his  in¬ 
dependence  of  instinct  as  the  dictator  of  his  actions.  He 
acts  from  free  choice  and  conscious  design,  and  is  able  to  change 
his  mind  at  any  moment,  at  any  new  evidence  or  even  through 
whim.  He  is  therefore  responsible  for  his  every  act  or  omis¬ 
sion,  even  for  his  every  intention.  This  alone  renders  him  a 
moral  being,  a  child  of  God ;  thus  the  moral  sense  rests  upon 
freedom  of  the  will.1 

2.  The  idea  of  moral  freedom  is  expressed  as  early  as  the 
first  pages  of  the  Bible,  in  the  words  which  God  spoke  to  Cain 
while  he  was  planning  the  murder  of  his  brother  Abel : 
“  Whether  or  not,  thou  offerest  an  acceptable  gift,”  (New 
Bible  translation:  “If  thou  doest  well,  shall  it  not  be  lifted 
up?  and  if  thou  doest  not  well,”)  “  sin  coucheth  at  the  door ; 
and  unto  thee  is  its  desire,  but  thou  mayest  rule  over  it.”  2 
Here,  without  any  reference  to  the  sin  of  Adam  in  the  first 
generation,  the  man  of  the  second  generation  is  told  that 
he  is  free  to  choose  between  good  and  evil,  that  he  alone 
is  responsible  before  God  for  what  he  does  or  omits  to  do. 
This  certainly  indicates  that  the  moral  freedom  of  man  is 
not  impaired  by  hereditary  sin,  or  by  any  evil  power  outside 

1  See  Dillmann,  1.  c.,  301  f.,  3 75 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Freedom  of  Will. 

2  Gen.  IV,  7. 

231 


J 


232 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  man  himself.  This  principle  is  established  in  the  words  of 
Moses  spoken  in  the  name  of  God:  “I  have  set  before  thee 
life  and  death,  the  blessing  and  the  curse;  therefore  choose 
life,  that  thou  mayest  live,  thou  and  thy  seed.”  1  In  like 
manner  Jeremiah  proclaims  in  God’s  name:  “ Behold  I  set 
before  you  the  way  of  life  and  the  way  of  death.”  2 

3.  From  these  passages  and  many  similar  ones  the  sages 
derived  their  oft-repeated  idea  that  man  stands  ever  at  the 
parting  of  the  ways,  to  choose  either  the  good  or  the  evil 
path.3  Thus  the  words  spoken  by  God  to  the  angels  when 
Adam  and  Eve  were  to  be  expelled  from  Paradise:  “Behold, 
the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil,”  are 
interpreted  by  R.  Akiba:  “He  was  given  the  choice  to  go 
the  way  of  life  or  the  way  of  death,  but  he  chose  the  way  of 
death  by  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit.”  4  R.  Akiba  empha¬ 
sizes  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  again  in  the  terse 
saying:  “All  things  are  foreseen  (by  God),  but  free  will  is 
granted  (to  man).”  5 

4.  At  the  first  encounter  of  Judaism  with  those  philosophi¬ 
cal  schools  of  Hellas  which  denied  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will,  the  Jewish  teachers  insisted  strongly  on  this  principle. 
The  first  reference  is  found  in  Ben  Sira,  who  refutes  the  ar¬ 
guments  of  the  Determinists  that  God  could  make  man  sin, 
and  then  goes  on:  “God  created  man  at  the  beginning,  en¬ 
dowing  him  with  the  power  of  self-determination,  saying  to 
him :  If  thou  but  wiliest,  thou  canst  observe  My  command¬ 
ments  ;  to  practice  faithfulness  is  a  matter  of  free  will.  .  .  . 
As  when  fire  and  water  are  put  before  thee,  so  that  thou  may¬ 
est  reach  forth  thy  hand  to  that  which  thou  desirest,  so  are 
life  and  death  placed  before  man,  and  whatever  he  chooses  of 

1  Deut.  XXX,  15-19.  2  Jer.  XXI,  8. 

3  See  Sifre  Deut.  53-54 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Didache. 

4  Gen.  Ill,  22;  Mek.  Beshallah  6;  Gen.  R.  XXI,  5;  Mid.  Teh.  Ps.  XXXVI, 
3 ;  LVIII,  2. 

6  Aboth  III,  15,  but  see  Schechter :  Aspects ,  285,  note  4. 


FREE  WILL  AND  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY 


his  own  desire  will  be  given  to  him.”  1  The  Book  of  Enoch 
voices  this  truth  also  in  the  forceful  sentences :  “Sin  has  not 
been  sent  upon  the  earth  (from  above),  but  men  have  pro¬ 
duced  it  out  of  themselves ;  therefore  they  who  commit  sin 
are  condemned.”  2  We  read  similar  sentiments  in  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon,  a  Pharisean  work  of  the  first  pre-Christian  cen¬ 
tury:3  “Our  actions  are  the  outcome  of  the  free  choice  and 
power  of  our  own  soul ;  to  practice  justice  or  injustice  lies  in 
the  work  of  our  own  hands.” 

The  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  is  especially  instructive  in  the 
great  stress  which  it  lays  on  freedom,  in  connection  with  its 
chief  theme,  the  sinfulness  of  the  children  of  Adam.  “This 
is  the  condition  of  the  contest  which  man  who  is  born  on  earth 
must  wage,  that,  if  he  be  conquered  by  the  evil  inclination, 
he  must  suffer  that  of  which  thou  hast  spoken  (the  tortures 
of  hell),  but  if  he  be  victorious,  he  shall  receive  (the  reward) 
which  I  (the  angel)  have  mentioned.  For  this  is  the  way 
whereof  Moses  spoke  when  he  lived,  saying  unto  the  people, 
‘Choose  life,  that  thou  mayest  live  !’  .  .  .  For  all  who  knew 
Me  not  in  life  when  they  received  My  benefits,  who  despised 
My  law  when  they  yet  had  freedom,  and  did  not  heed  the  door 
of  repentance  while  it  was  still  open  before  them,  but  disre¬ 
garded  it,  after  death  they  shall  come  to  know  it !  ”  4 

5.  Hellenistic  Judaism  also,  particularly  Philo,5  considered 
the  truly  divine  in  man  to  be  his  free  will,  which  distinguishes 
him  from  the  beast.  Yet  Hellenistic  naturalism  could  not 
grasp  the  fact  that  man’s  power  to  do  evil  in  opposition  to  God, 
the  Source  of  the  good,  is  the  greatest  reminder  of  his  moral 
responsibility.  Josephus  likewise  mentions  frequently  as  a 
characteristic  teaching  of  the  Pharisees  that  man’s  free  will 

1  Ben  Sira  XV,  11-20.  2  Enoch  XCVIII,  4. 

3 IX,  7.  4 IV  Ezra  VII,  12  7-1 29 ;  IX,  10-n. 

5Quoddeus  immutabilis,  10,  I,  279;  Di  confusione  linguarum,  35,  I,  432; 
Quod  deterius  potiori  insid,  32, 1,  214. 


234 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


determines  his  acts  without  any  compulsion  of  destiny.1 
Only  we  must  not  accept  too  easily  the  words  of  this  Jewish 
historian,  who  wrote  for  his  Roman  masters  and,  therefore, 
represented  the  Jewish  parties  as  so  many  philosophical  schools 
after  the  Greek  pattern.  The  Pharisean  doctrine  is  presented 
most  tersely  in  the  Talmudic  maxim:  “Everything  is  in  the 
hands  of  God  except  the  fear  of  God.”  2  Like  the  quotation 
from  R.  Akiba  above,  this  contains  the  great  truth  that  man's 
destiny  is  determined  by  Providence,  but  his  character  de¬ 
pends  upon  his  own  free  decision.  This  idea  recurs  frequently 
in  such  Talmudic  sayings  as  these:  “The  wicked  are  in  the 
power  of  their  desires;  the  righteous  have  their  desires  in 
their  own  power;”  3  “The  eye,  the  ear,  and  the  nostrils  are 
not  in  man’s  power,  but  the  mouth,  the  hand,  and  the  feet 
are.”  4  That  is,  the  impressions  we  receive  from  the  world 
without  us  come  involuntarily,  but  our  acts,  our  steps,  and 
our  words  arise  from  our  own  volition. 

6.  A  deeper  insight  into  the  problem  of  free  will  is  offered 
in  two  other  Talmudic  sayings;  the  one  is:  “Whosoever 
desires  to  pollute  himself  with  sin  will  find  all  the  gates  open 
before  him,  and  whosoever  desires  to  attain  the  highest  purity 
will  find  all  the  forces  of  goodness  ready  to  help  him.”  5  The 
other  reads :  “It  can  be  proved  by  the  Torah,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  other  sacred  writings  that  man  is  led  along  the  road 
which  he  wishes  to  follow.”  6 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  person  is  absolutely  free,  for  in¬ 
numerable  influences  affect  his  decisions,  consciously  and 
unconsciously.  For  this  reason  many  thinkers,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  consider  freedom  a  delusion  and  hold  to  deter- 

1  Josephus,  J.  W.,  II,  8,  14 ;  Ant.  XVIII,  1,  3.  2  Ber.  33  b. 

3  Gen.  R.  LXVII,  7.  Comp.  P.  R.  El.  XV. 

4  Tanh.  Toledoth,  ed.  Buber,  21. 

6  Shab.  104  a;  Yoma  38  b-39  a;  Yer.  Kid.  I,  67  d. 

6  Mak.  10  b;  ref.  to  Ex.  XXI,  12;  Num.  XXII,  12;  Isa.  XL VIII,  17; 
Prov.  Ill,  34. 


FREE  WILL  AND  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY  235 


minism,  the  doctrine  that  man  acts  always  under  the  com¬ 
pulsion  of  external  and  internal  forces.  In  opposition  to  this 
theory  is  one  incontestable  fact,  our  own  inner  sense  of  free¬ 
dom  which  tells  us  at  every  step  that  we  have  acted,  and  at 
every  decision  that  we  have  decided.  Man  can  maintain  his 
own  power  of  self-determination  against  all  influences  from 
without  and  within;  his  will  is  the  final  arbiter  over  every 
impulse  and  every  pressure.  Moreover,  as  we  penetrate  more 
deeply  into  the  working  of  the  mind,  we  see  that  a  long  series 
of  our  own  voluntary  acts  has  occasioned  much  that  we  con¬ 
sider  external,  that  the  very  pressure  of  the  past  on  our 
thoughts,  feelings  and  habits,  which  leaves  so  little  weight  for 
the  decision  of  the  moment,  is  really  only  our  past  will  influ¬ 
encing  our  present  will.  That  is,  the  will  may  determine 
itself,  but  it  does  not  do  so  arbitrarily ;  its  action  is  along  the 
lines  of  its  own  character.  We  have  the  power  to  receive  the 
influence  of  either  the  noble  or  the  ignoble  series  of  impres¬ 
sions,  and  thus  to  yield  either  to  the  lofty  or  the  low  impulses 
of  the  soul. 

In  this  way  the  rabbis  interpret  various  expressions  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  which  would  seem  to  limit  man’s  freedom,  as  where  God 
induces  man  to  good  or  evil  acts,  or  hardens  the  heart  of 
Pharaoh  so  that  he  will  not  let  the  Israelites  go,  until  the 
plagues  had  been  fulfilled  upon  him  and  his  people.1  They 
understand  in  such  an  instance  that  a  man’s  heart  has  a  pre¬ 
vailing  inclination  toward  right  or  wrong,  the  expression  of 
his  character,  and  that  God  encouraged  this  inclination  along 
the  evil  course ;  thus  the  freedom  of  the  human  will  was  kept 
intact. 

7.  The  doctrine  of  man’s  free  will  presents  another  difficulty 
from  the  side  of  divine  omniscience.  For  if  God  knows  in 

1  Ex.  IV,  21 ;  VII,  3,  and  elsewhere;  see  the  Jewish  commentaries  to  these 
passages.  Comp.  Pes.  165  a;  Num.  R.  XV,  16.  See  Schechter,  Aspects , 
289-292. 


236 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


advance  what  is  to  happen,  then  man’s  acts  are  determined 
by  this  very  foreknowledge ;  he  is  no  longer  free,  and  his  moral 
responsibility  becomes  an  idle  dream.  In  order  to  escape 
this  dilemma,  the  Mohammedan  theologians  were  compelled 
to  limit  either  the  divine  omniscience  or  human  freedom,  and 
most  of  them  resorted  to  the  latter  method.  It  is  charac¬ 
teristic  of  Judaism  that  its  great  thinkers,  from  Saadia  to  Mai- 
monides  and  Gersonides,1  dared  not  alter  the  doctrine  of  man’s 
free  will  and  moral  responsibility,  but  even  preferred  to  limit 
the  divine  omniscience.  Hisdai  Crescas  is  the  only  one  to  re¬ 
strict  human  freedom  in  favor  of  the  foreknowledge  of  God.2 

8.  The  insistence  of  Judaism  on  unrestricted  freedom  of 
will  for  each  individual  entirely  excludes  hereditary  sin.  This 
is  shown  in  the  traditional  explanation  of  the  verse  of  the 
Decalogue:  “ Visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that 
hate  Me.”  3  According  to  the  rabbis  the  words  “of  them  that 
hate  Me”  do  not  refer  to  the  fathers,  according  to  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  passage,  but  to  the  children  and  children’s 
children.  These  are  to  be  punished  only  when  they  hate  God 
and  follow  the  evil  example  of  their  fathers.4  Despite  ex¬ 
ample  and  hereditary  disposition,  the  descendants  of  evil¬ 
doers  can  lead  a  virtuous  life,  and  their  punishment  comes 
only  when  they  fail  to  resist  the  evil  influences  of  their  pa¬ 
rental  household.  To  illustrate  the  Biblical  words,  “Who  can 
bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean?”5  the  rabbis  single 
out  Abraham,  the  son  of  Terah,  Hezekiah,  the  son  of  Ahaz, 
and  Josiah,  the  son  of  Manasseh.6  Man,  being  made  in 

1  Saadia:  Emunoth ,  III,  154;  IV,  7  f. ;  Bahya :  Hoboth  haleboboth,  III,  8; 
Cuzari,  V,  20;  Moreh  I,  23;  III,  16;  II.  Teshuba,  V;  Gersonides:  Milhamoth, 
III,  106 ;  Albo :  Ikkarim,  IV,  5-10 ;  see  Cassel  notes,  Cuzari ,  p.  414. 

2  Or  Adonai  II,  4;  comp.  Bloch:  Willensfreiheit  des  Hisdai  Crescas; 
Neumark :  Crescas  and  Spinoza ,  Y.  B.  C.  C.  A.  R.  1908. 

3  Ex.  XX,  5.  4  Sanh.  27  b. 

6  Job  XIV,  4.  0  Pesik.  29  b. 


FREE  WILL  AND  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY  237 


God’s  image,  determines  his  own  character  by  his  own  free 
choice ;  by  his  will  he  can  raise  or  lower  himself  in  the  scale 
of  being. 

9.  The  fundamental  character  of  the  doctrine  of  free  will 
for  Judaism  is  shown  by  Maimonides,  who  devotes  a  special 
chapter  of  his  Code  to  it,1  and  calls  it  the  pillar  of  Israel’s 
faith  and  morality,  since  through  it  alone  man  manifests  his 
god-like  sovereignty.  For  should  his  freedom  be  limited  by 
any  kind  of  predestination,  he  would  be  deprived  of  his  moral 
responsibility,  which  constitutes  his  real  greatness.  In  en¬ 
deavoring  to  reconcile  God’s  omnipotence  and  omniscience 
with  man’s  freedom,  Maimonides  says  that  God  wants  man  to 
erect  a  kingdom  of  morality  without  interference  from  above ; 
moreover,  God’s  knowledge  is  different  in  kind  from  that 
of  man,  and  thus  is  not  an  infringement  upon  man’s  freedom, 
as  the  human  type  of  knowledge  would  be.  However, 
Abraham  ben  David  of  Posquieres  blames  Maimonides  for 
proposing  questions  which  he  could  not  answer  satisfactorily 
in  the  Code,  which  is  intended  for  non-philosophical  readers. 
The  fact  is  that  this  is  only  another  of  the  problems  insoluble 
to  human  reasoning ;  the  freedom  of  the  will  must  remain 
for  all  time  a  postulate  of  moral  responsibility,  and  therefore 
of  religion. 


1  H.  Teshubah,  V. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII 


The  Meaning  of  Sin 

1.  Sin  is  a  religious  conception.  It  does  not  signify  a 
breach  of  law  or  morality,  or  of  popular  custom  and  sacred 
usage,  but  an  offense  against  God,  provoking  His  punishment. 
As  long  as  the  deity  is  merely  dreaded  as  an  external  power, 
not  adored  as  a  moral  power  ruling  life  from  within  for  a 
holy  purpose,  sin,  too,  is  considered  a  purely  formal  offense. 
The  deity  demands  to  be  worshiped  by  certain  rites  and  may 
be  propitiated  by  other  formal  acts.1  For  Judaism,  however, 
sin  is  a  straying  from  the  path  of  God,  an  offense  against  the 
divine  order  of  holiness.  Thus  it  signifies  an  abuse  of  the 
freedom  granted  man  as  his  most  precious  boon.  Therefore 
sin  has  a  twofold  character ;  formally  it  is  an  offense  against 
the  majesty  of  God,  whose  laws  are  broken ;  essentially  it  is 
a  severance  of  the  soul’s  inner  relations  to  God,  an  estrange¬ 
ment  from  Him. 

2.  Scripture  has  three  different  terms  for  sin,  which  do  not 
differ  greatly  in  point  of  language,  but  indicate  three  stages 
of  thought.  First  is  het  or  hataah ,  which  connotes  any 
straying  from  the  right  path,  whether  caused  by  levity,  care¬ 
lessness,  or  design,  and  may  even  include  wrongs  committed 
unwittingly,  shegagah.  Second  is  avon,  a  crookedness  or 
perversion  of  the  straight  order  of  the  law.  Third  is  pesha , 
a  wicked  act  committed  presumptuously  in  defiance  of  God 
and  His  law.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the  conception  of 

1  See  Morgenstern,  “  The  Doctrine  of  Sin  in  the  Babylonian  Religion”  in 
Mitth.  Vorderas.  Gesellsch.  1905. 


238 


THE  MEANING  OF  SIN 


239 


sin  was  deepened  by  degrees,  as  the  prophets,  psalmists  and 
moralists  grew  to  think  of  God  as  the  pattern  of  the  highest 
moral  perfection,  as  the  Holy  One  before  whom  an  evil  act  or 
thought  cannot  abide. 

The  rabbis  usually  employed  the  term  aberah,  that  is,  a 
transgression  of  a  divine  commandment.  In  contrast  to 
this  they  used  mitzwah ,  a  divine  command,  which  denotes 
also  the  whole  range  of  duty,  including  the  desire  and  intention 
of  the  human  soul.  From  this  point  of  view  every  evil  de¬ 
sign  or  impulse,  every  thought  and  act  contrary  to  God’s 
law,  becomes  a  sin. 

3.  Sin  arises  from  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  the  desire  of 
the  heart,  and  accordingly  in  the  first  instance  from  an  error 
of  judgment.  The  Bible  frequently  speaks  of  sin  as  “ folly.”  1 
A  rabbinical  saying  brings  out  this  same  idea:  “No  one  sins 
unless  the  spirit  of  folly  has  entered  into  him  to  deceive  him.”  2 
A  sinful  imagination  lures  one  to  sin;  the  repetition  of  the 
forbidden  act  lowers  the  barrier  of  the  commandment,  until 
the  trespass  is  hardened  into  “callous”  and  “stubborn”  dis¬ 
regard,  and  finally  into  “reckless  defiance”  and  “insolent 
godlessness.”  Such  a  process  is  graphically  expressed  by  the 
various  terms  used  in  the  Bible.  According  to  the  rabbinical 
figure,  “sin  appears  at  first  as  thin  as  a  spider’s  web,  but  grows 
stronger  and  stronger,  until  it  becomes  like  a  wagon-rope  to 
bind  a  man.”  Or,  “sin  comes  at  first  as  a  passer-by  to  tarry 
for  a  moment,  then  as  a  visitor  to  stay,  finally  as  the  master 
of  the  house  to  claim  possession.”  Therefore  it  is  incumbent 
upon  us  to  “guard”  the  heart,  and  not  “to  go  astray  follow¬ 
ing  after  our  eyes  and  our  heart.”  3 

4.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  Judaism  no  one  is  sinful 
by  nature.  No  person  sins  by  an  inner  compulsion.  But 

1  Gen.  VI,  3 ;  Ps.  LXXVIII,  39-  2  Sota  3  a. 

3  Suk.  52  a,  b.  Comp.  Schechter,  “The  Evil  Yezer,  Source  of  Rebellion  and 
Victory  over  the  Evil  Yezer,”  1.  c.,  242-292. 


240 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


as  man  has  a  nature  of  flesh,  which  is  sensuous  and  selfish, 
each  person  is  inclined  to  sin  and  none  is  perfectly  free  from 
it.  “  Who  can  say :  I  have  made  my  heart  clean,  I  am  pure 
from  any  sin?”  1  This  is  the  voice  of  the  Bible  and  of  all 
human  experience;  “For  there  is  not  a  righteous  man  upon 
earth,  that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth  not.”  2  The  expression 
occurs  repeatedly  in  Job :  “Shall  mortal  man  be  just  before 
God?  Shall  a  man  be  pure  before  his  Maker?”3  Even 
Moses  is  represented  in  numerous  passages  as  showing  human 
foibles  and  failings.4  In  fact,  “  the  greater  the  personality, 
the  more  severely  will  God  call  him  to  account  for  the  smallest 
trespass,  for  God  desires  to  be  ‘ sanctified’  by  His  righteous 
ones.”  5  The  Midrash  tells  us  that  no  one  is  to  be  called 
holy,  until  death  has  put  an  end  to  his  struggle  with  the  ever- 
lurking  tempter  within,  and  he  lies  in  the  earth  with  the 
victor’s  crown  of  peace  upon  his  brow.6  When  we  read  the 
stern  sentence:  “Behold,  He  putteth  no  trust  in  His  holy 
ones,”  7  the  rabbis  refer  us  to  the  patriarchs,  each  of  whom 
had  his  faults.8  Measured  by  the  Pattern  of  all  holiness,  no 
human  being  is  free  from  blemish. 

5.  In  connection  with  the  God-idea,  the  conception  of 
sin  grew  from  crude  beginnings  to  the  higher  meaning  given 
it  by  Judaism.  The  ancient  Babylonians  used  the  same 
terminology  as  the  Bible  for  sin  and  sin-offering,  but  their 
view,  like  that  of  other  Semites,  was  far  more  external.9  If 
one  was  afflicted  with  disease  or  misfortune,  the  inference 
was  that  he  had  neglected  the  ritual  of  some  deity  and  must 
appease  the  angered  one  with  a  sacrificial  offering.  Any  ir¬ 
regularity  in  the  cult  was  an  offense  against  the  deity.  This 
became  more  moralized  with  the  higher  God-idea;  the  god 

1  Prov.  XX,  9.  2  Eccl.  VII,  20. 

3  Job  IV,  17 ;  XV,  14  f ;  XXV,  5.  4  Num.  XX,  12 ;  XXVII,  14. 

6  Yeb.  121  b.  6  Mid.  Teh.  Ps.  XVI,  2. 

7  Job  XV,  15.  8  Midr.  Teh.  eodem.  9  Morgenstern,  1.  c. 


THE  MEANING  OF  SIN 


241 


became  the  guardian  of  moral  principles ;  and  the  calamities, 
even  of  the  nation,  were  then  ascribed  to  the  divine  wrath  on 
account  of  moral  lapses.  The  same  process  may  be  observed 
in  the  views  of  ancient  Israel.  Here,  too,  during  the  domi¬ 
nance  of  the  priestly  view  the  gravest  possible  offense  was 
one  against  the  cult,  a  culpable  act  entailing  the  death  pen¬ 
alty —  as  ham,  or  “doom”  of  the  offender.  We  shudder  at 
the  thought  that  the  least  violation  of  the  hierarchical  rules 
for  the  sanctuary  or  even  for  the  burning  of  incense  should 
meet  the  penalty  of  death.  Yet  such  is  the  plain  statement  of 
the  Mosaic  law  and  such  was  the  actual  practice  of  the  people.1 

The  more  the  prophetic  conception  of  the  moral  nature  of 
the  Deity  permeated  the  Jewish  religion,  the  more  the  term 
sin  came  to  mean  an  offense  against  the  holiness  of  God,  the 
Guardian  of  morality.  Hence  the  great  prophets  upbraided 
the  people  for  their  moral,  not  their  ceremonial  failings.  They 
attacked  scathingly  transgressions  of  the  laws  of  righteousness 
and  purity,  the  true  sins  against  God,  because  these  originate 
in  dullness  of  heart,  unbridled  passion,  and  overbearing 
pride,  all  so  hateful  to  Him.  The  only  ritual  offenses  empha¬ 
sized  as  sins  against  God  are  idolatry,  violation  of  the  name 
of  God  and  of  the  Sabbath,  for  these  express  the  sanctity  of 
life.2  Except  for  these  points,  the  prophets  and  psalmists 
insisted  only  on  righteous  conduct  and  integrity  of  soul,  and 
repudiated  entirely  the  ritualism  of  the  priesthood  and  the 
formalism  of  the  cult.3  This  view  is  anticipated  by  Samuel, 
the  master  of  the  prophetic  schools,  when  he  says : 

“  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice, 

And  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams. 

For  rebellion  is  as  the  sin  of  witchcraft, 

And  stubbornness  is  as  idolatry  and  teraphim.”  4 

1  Ex.  XXX,  33,  38;  Lev.  X,  2;  XVI,  1-2;  Num.  XVII,  28;  XVIII,  7. 

2  Ezek.  XVIII,  6  f. ;  XX,  13  f. ;  Isa.  LVI,  2  f. 

3  Hos.  VI,  6;  Mic.  VI,  8;  Isa.  I,  n  f.  4 1  Sam.  XV,  22-23. 

R 


242 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


As  soon  as  we  realize  that  obedience  to  God’s  will  means 
right  conduct  and  purity  of  soul,  we  see  in  sin  the  desecra¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  image  in  man,  the  violation  of  his  heavenly 
patent  of  nobility. 

6.  Sin,  then,  is  in  its  essence  unfaithfulness  to  God  and  to 
our  own  god-like  nature.  We  see  this  thought  expressed  in 
Job:1 

“ If  thou  hast  sinned,  what  doest  thou  against  Him? 

And  if  thy  transgressions  be  multiplied,  what  doest  thou  unto  Him? 

If  thou  be  righteous,  what  givest  thou  unto  Him  ? 

Or  what  receiveth  He  of  thy  hand  ? 

Thy  wickedness  concerneth  a  man  as  thou  art ; 

And  thy  righteousness  a  son  of  man.” 

Thus  the  source  of  sin  is  the  human  heart,  the  origin  of  all 
our  thinking  and  planning.  We  know  sin  chiefly  as  con¬ 
sciousness  of  guilt.  Man’s  conscience  accuses  him  and  com¬ 
pels  him  to  confess,  “  Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned.” 2 
Not  only  the  deed  itself,  but  even  more  the  will  which  caused 
it,  is  condemned  by  conscience.  Such  self-accusation  con¬ 
stantly  proves  anew  that  there  is  no  place  for  original  sin 
through  the  fall  of  Adam.  “I  could  have  controlled  my  evil 
desire,  if  I  had  but  earnestly  willed  it,”  said  King  David,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Talmud.3 

7.  Sin  engenders  a  feeling  of  disunion  with  God  through 
the  consciousness  of  guilt  which  accompanies  it.  It  erects 
a  “wall  of  separation”  between  man  and  his  Maker,  depriv¬ 
ing  him  of  peace  and  security.4  Guilt  causes  pain,  which 
overwhelms  him,  until  he  has  made  atonement  and  obtained 
pardon  before  God.  This  is  no  imaginary  feeling,  easily  over¬ 
come  and  capable  of  being  suppressed  by  the  sinner  with  im¬ 
punity.  Instead,  he  must  pay  the  full  penalty  for  his  sin, 
lest  it  lead  him  to  the  very  abyss  of  evil,  to  physical  and  moral 
death.  Sin  in  the  individual  becomes  a  sense  of  self-con- 

1  Job  XXXV,  6-8.  2  Ps.  LI,  6.  3  Sanh.  107  a.  “  Isa.  LIX,  2. 


THE  MEANING  OF  SIN 


243 


demnation,  the  consciousness  of  the  divine  anger.  Hence  the 
Hebrew  term  avon,  sin,  is  often  synonymous  with  punishment,1 
and  asham,  guilt,  often  signifies  the  atonement  for  the  guilt, 
and  sometimes  doom  and  perdition  as  a  consequence  of 
guilt.2 3  Undoubtedly  this  still  contains  a  remnant  of  the  old 
Semitic  idea  that  an  awful  divine  visitation  may  come  upon 
an  entire  household  or  community  because  of  a  criminal  or 
sacrilegious  act  committed,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  by 
one  of  its  members.  Such  a  fate  can  be  averted  only  by  an 
atoning  sacrifice.  This  accords  with  the  rather  strange  fact 
that  the  Priestly  Code  prescribes  certain  guilt  offerings  for 
sins  committed  unwittingly,  which  are  called  asham? 

8.  But  even  these  unintentional  sins  can  be  avoided  by 
the  constant  exercise  of  caution,  so  that  their  commission 
implies  a  certain  degree  of  guilt,  which  demands  a  measure  of 
repentance.  Thus  the  Psalmist  says:  “Who  can  discern 
errors?  Clear  Thou  me  from  hidden  faults.” 4  He  thus 
implies  that  we  feel  responsible  in  a  certain  sense  for  all  our 
sins,  including  those  which  we  commit  unknowingly.  The 
rabbis  dwell  especially  on  the  idea  that  we  are  never  altogether 
free  from  sinful  thoughts.  For  this  reason,  they  tell  us,  the 
two  burnt  offerings  were  brought  to  the  altar  each  morning 
and  evening,  to  atone  for  the  sinful  thoughts  of  the  people 
during  the  preceding  day  or  night.5 

9.  At  any  rate,  Judaism  recognizes  no  sin  which  does  not 
arise  from  the  individual  conscience  or  moral  personality. 
The  condemnation  of  a  whole  generation  or  race  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  sin  of  a  single  individual  is  an  essentially  heathen 
idea,  which  was  overcome  by  Judaism  in  the  course  of  time 
through  the  prophetic  teaching  of  the  divine  justice  and  man’s 
moral  responsibility.  This  sentiment  was  voiced  by  Moses 

1  Gen.  IV,  13;  XV,  16;  XIX,  15;  Ps.  XL,  13. 

2  Gen.  XXVI,  10;  XLII,  21 ;  Ps.  XXXIV,  22. 

3  Lev.  IV,  13  f. ;  Num.  V,  6.  4  Ps.  XIX,  13.  B  Num.  R.  XXI,  19. 


244 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


and  Aaron  after  the  rebellion  of  Korah  in  the  words:  “O 
God,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  shall  one  man  sin, 
and  wilt  Thou  be  wroth  with  all  the  congregation?”1  In 
commenting  upon  this,  the  Midrash  says:  “A  human  king 
may  make  war  upon  a  whole  province,  because  it  contains 
rebels  who  have  caused  sedition,  and  so  the  innocent  must 
suffer  together  with  the  guilty ;  but  it  does  not  behoove  God, 
the  Ruler  of  the  spirits,  who  looks  into  the  hearts  of  men,  to 
punish  the  guiltless  together  with  the  guilty.”  2  The  Chris¬ 
tian  view  of  universal  guilt  as  a  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin, 
the  dogma  of  original  sin,  is  actually  a  relapse  from  the 
Jewish  stage  to  the  heathen  doctrine  from  which  the  Jewish 
religion  freed  itself. 

io.  According  to  the  Biblical  view  sin  contaminates  man, 
so  that  he  cannot  stand  in  the  presence  of  God.  The  holiness 
of  Him  who  is  “of  eyes  too  pure  to  behold  evil”  3  becomes  to 
the  sinner  “a  devouring  fire.”  4  Even  the  lofty  prophet  Isaiah 
realizes  his  own  human  limitations  at  the  sublime  vision  of 
the  God  of  holiness  enthroned  on  high,  while  the  angelic 
choruses  chant  their  thrice  holy.  In  humility  and  contrition 
he  cries  out:  “Woe  is  me,  for  I  am  undone!  Because  I  am 
a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a  people  of 
unclean  lips;  For  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of 
hosts.”  5  The  prophet  must  undergo  atonement  in  order  to 
be  prepared  for  his  high  prophetic  task.  One  of  the  Seraphs 
purges  him  of  his  sins  by  touching  his  lips  with  a  live  coal 
taken  from  the  altar  of  God. 

Under  the  influence  of  Persian  dualism,  rabbinical  Judaism 
considers  sin  a  pollution  which  puts  man  under  the  power  of 
unclean  spirits.6  In  the  later  Cabbalah  this  idea  is  elabo¬ 
rated  until  the  world  of  sin  is  considered  a  cosmic  power  of 
impurity,  opposed  to  the  realm  of  right,  working  evil  ever 

1  Num.  XVI,  22.  2  Tanh.  Korah,  ed.  Buber,  19.  3  Habak.  I,  13. 

4  Isa.  XXXIII,  14.  5  Isa.  VI,  5-7.  6  Pes.  45  b ;  Gen.  R.  XXIII,  9. 


THE  MEANING  OF  SIN 


245 


since  the  fall  of  Adam.1  Still,  however  close  this  may  come 
to  the  Christian  dogma,  it  never  becomes  identical  with  it; 
the  recognition  is  always  preserved  of  man’s  power  to  extri¬ 
cate  himself  from  the  realm  of  imparity  and  to  elevate  himself 
into  the  realm  of  purity  by  his  own  repentance.  Sin  never 
becomes  a  demoniacal  power  depriving  man  of  his  divine 
dignity  of  self-determination  and  condemning  him  to  eternal 
damnation.  It  ever  remains  merely  a  going  astray  from  the 
right  path,  a  stumbling  from  which  man  may  rise  again  to 
his  heavenly  height,  exerting  his  own  powers  as  the  son  of 
God. 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Cabala;  Abelson,  Jewish  Mysticism ,  p.  127  f.,  171  f. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX 


Repentance  or  the  Return  to  God 

1.  The  brightest  gem  among  the  teachings  of  Judaism  is 
its  doctrine  of  repentance  or,  in  its  own  characteristic  term, 
the  return  of  the  wayward  sinner  to  God.1  Man,  full  of  re¬ 
morse  at  having  fallen  away  from  the  divine  Fountainhead 
of  purity,  conscious  of  deserving  a  sentence  of  condemnation 
from  the  eternal  Judge,  would  be  less  happy  than  the  unrea¬ 
soning  brute  which  cannot  sin  at  all.  Religion  restores  him 
by  the  power  to  rise  from  his  shame  and  guilt,  to  return  to 
God  in  repentance,  as  the  penitent  son  returns  to  his  father. 
Whether  we  regard  sin  as  estrangement  from  God  or  as  a 
disturbance  of  the  divine  order,  it  has  a  detrimental  effect 
on  both  body  and  soul,  and  leads  inevitably  to  death.  On 
this  point  the  Bible  affords  many  historical  illustrations  and 
doctrinal  teachings.2  If  man  had  no  way  to  escape  from  sin, 
then  he  would  be  the  most  unfortunate  of  creatures,  in  spite 
of  his  god-like  nature.  Therefore  the  merciful  God  opens  the 
gate  of  repentance  for  the  sinner,  saying  as  through  His  proph¬ 
ets  of  old :  “I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked, 
but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live.”  3 

2.  The  great  value  of  the  gift  of  divine  grace,  by  which 
the  sinner  may  repent  and  return  to  God  with  a  new  spirit,  ap- 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Repentance;  Claude  Montefiore :  “Rabbinical  Concep¬ 
tions  of  Repentance,”  in  J.  Q.  R.,  Jan.  1904;  Schechter,  Aspects ,  313-343. 
The  works  of  Weber  (p.  261  f.),  Bousset  (p.  446  f.),  and  Davidson  (1.  c.,  327- 
338)  do  not  do  justice  to  the  Jewish  teachings. 

2  Ezek.  XVIII,  4;  Ps.  XXXIV,  21;  Prov.  XIV,  12. 

3  Ezek.  XVIII,  32 ;  XXXIII,  n. 


246 


REPENTANCE  OR  THE  RETURN  TO  GOD 


247 


pears  in  the  following  rabbinical  saying :  “  Wisdom  was  asked, 
‘  What  shall  be  the  sinner’s  punishment  ?  ’  and  answered,  ‘  Evil 
pursues  sinners’;1  then  Prophecy  was  asked,  and  answered, 
‘The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die’ ; 2  the  Torah,  or  legal  code, 
was  consulted,  and  its  answer  was:  ‘He  shall  bring  a  sin-of¬ 
fering,  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him,  and 
he  shall  be  forgiven.’ 3  Finally  God  Himself  was  asked,  and 
He  answered : 4  ‘  Good  and  upright  is  the  Lord ;  therefore 
doth  He  instruct  sinners  in  the  way.’”  6  The  Jewish  idea  of 
atonement  by  the  sinner’s  return  to  God  excludes  every  kind 
of  mediatorship.  Neither  the  priesthood  nor  sacrifice  is 
necessary  to  secure  the  divine  grace;  man  need  only  find 
the  way  to  God  by  his  own  efforts.  “Seek  ye  Me,  and  live,”  6 
says  God  to  His  erring  children. 

3.  Teshubah,  which  means  return,  is  an  idea  peculiar  to 
Judaism,  created  by  the  prophets  of  Israel,  and  arising  di¬ 
rectly  from  the  simple  Jewish  conception  of  sin.  Since  sin  is 
a  deviation  from  the  path  of  salvation,  a  “  straying  ”  into  the 
road  of  perdition  and  death,  the  erring  can  return  with  heart 
and  soul,  end  his  ways,  and  thus  change  his  entire  being. 
This  is  not  properly  expressed  by  the  term  repentance,  which 
denotes  only  regret  for  the  wrong,  but  not  the  inner  trans¬ 
formation.  Nor  is  Teshubah  to  be  rendered  by  either  peni¬ 
tence  or  penance.  The  former  indicates  a  sort  of  bodily 
self-castigation,  the  latter  some  other  kind  of  penalty  under¬ 
gone  in  order  to  expiate  sin.  Such  external  forms  of  asceti¬ 
cism  were  prescribed  and  practiced  by  many  tribes  and  some 
of  the  historical  religions.  The  Jewish  prophets,  however, 
opposed  them  bitterly,  demanding  an  inner  change,  a  trans¬ 
formation  of  soul,  renewing  both  heart  and  spirit. 

1  Prov.  XIII,  21.  2  Ezek.  XVIII,  4. 

3  Lev.  I,  4;  IV,  26-31.  4  Ps.  XXV,  8. 

B  Yer.  Mak.  II,  37  d;  Pesik.  158  b.  See  Schechter,  1.  c.,  p.  294,  note  1. 

6  Amos  V,  4. 


248 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


“Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way, 

And  the  man  of  iniquity  his  thoughts ; 

And  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will  have  compassion  upon 
him, 

And  to  our  God,  for  He  will  abundantly  pardon.”  1 

Judaism  considers  sin  merely  moral  aberration,  not  utter  corrup¬ 
tion,  and  believes  in  the  capability  of  the  very  worst  of  sinners 
to  improve  his  ways  ;  therefore  it  waits  ever  for  his  regeneration. 
This  is  truly  a  return  to  God,  the  restoration  of  the  divine 
image  which  has  been  disfigured  and  corrupted  by  sin. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  Teshubah ,  or  the  return  of  the  sinner, 
has  a  specially  instructive  history,  as  this  most  precious  and 
unique  conception  of  Judaism  is  little  understood  or  ap¬ 
preciated  by  Christian  theologians.  Often  without  intentional 
bias,  these  are  so  under  the  influence  of  the  Paulinian  dogma 
that  they  see  no  redemption  for  man  corrupted  by  sin,  except 
by  his  belief  in  a  superhuman  act  of  atonement.  It  is  cer¬ 
tainly  significant  that  the  legal  code,  which  is  of  priestly  origin, 
does  not  mention  repentance  or  the  sinner’s  return.  It  pre¬ 
scribes  various  types  of  sin-offerings,  speaks  of  reparation  for 
wrong  inflicted,  of  penalties  for  crime,  and  of  confession  for 
sins,  but  it  does  not  state  how  the  soul  can  be  purged  of  sin, 
so  that  man  can  regain  his  former  state  of  purity.  This  great 
gap  is  filled  by  the  prophetic  books  and  the  Psalms.  The 
book  of  Deuteronomy  alone,  written  under  prophetic  influ¬ 
ence,  alludes  to  repentance,  in  connection  with  the  time  when 
Israel  would  be  taken  captive  from  its  land  as  punishment 
for  its  violation  of  the  law.  There  we  read:  “Thou  shalt 
return  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  .  .  .  with  all  thy  heart,  and 
all  thy  soul,  then  the  Lord  thy  God  will  turn  thy  captivity, 
and  have  compassion  upon  thee.”  2 

Amos,  the  prophet  of  stern  justice,  has  not  yet  reached  the 
idea  of  averting  the  divine  wrath  by  the  return  of  the  sinner.3 

1  Isa.  LV,  7.  2  Deut.  IV,  30;  XXX,  2-3.  3  Amos  IV,  6  f. 


REPENTANCE  OR  THE  RETURN  TO  GOD 


249 


Hosea,  the  prophet  of  divine  mercy  and  loving-kindness,  in 
his  deep  compassion  for  the  unfaithful  and  backsliding  people, 
became  the  preacher  of  repentance  as  the  condition  for  at¬ 
taining  the  divine  pardon. 

“  Return,  O  Israel,  unto  the  Lord  thy  God ; 

For  thou  hast  stumbled  in  thine  iniquity. 

Take  with  you  words  (of  repentance), 

And  return  unto  the  Lord ; 

Say  unto  Him,  ‘Forgive  all  iniquity, 

And  accept  that  which  is  good ; 

So  will  we  render  for  bullocks  the  offering  of  our  lips.’”  1 

The  appeal  of  Jeremiah  is  still  more  vigorous : 

“Return,  thou  backsliding  Israel,  saith  the  Lord.  .  .  . 

Only  acknowledge  thine  iniquity,  that  thou  hast  transgressed  against 
the  Lord  thy  God.  .  .  . 

Break  up  for  you  a  fallow  ground,  and  sow  not  among  thorns  .  .  . 

O  Jerusalem,  wash  thy  heart  from  wickedness,  that  thou  mayest 
be  saved ; 

How  long  shall  thy  baleful  thoughts  lodge  within  thee  ?  .  .  . 

Return  ye  now  every  one  from  his  evil  way,  and  amend  your  ways 
and  your  doings.”  2 

Ezekiel,  while  emphasizing  the  guilt  of  the  individual, 
preached  repentance  still  more  insistently.  “  Return  ye,  and 
turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions ;  so  shall  they 
not  be  a  stumbling-block  of  iniquity  to  you.  Cast  away  from 
you  all  your  transgressions,  wherein  ye  have  transgressed ; 
and  make  you  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit;  for  why  will 
ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ?  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God ;  wherefore  turn  your¬ 
selves,  and  live.”3  The  same  appeal  recurs  after  the  exile 
in  the  last  prophets,  Zechariah  4  and  Malachi.5  The  latter 
says:  “  Return  unto  Me,  and  I  shall  return  unto  you.”  Like- 

1  Hos.  VI,  I ;  XIV,  2  f. 

3  Ezek.  XVIII,  1-32. 


2  Jer.  Ill,  12-13;  IV,  3;  14;  XVIII,  11. 
4  Zech.  I,  3.  6  Mai.  Ill,  7. 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


250 

wise  the  penitential  sermon  written  in  a  time  of  great  distress, 
which  is  ascribed  to  the  prophet  Joel,  contains  the  appeal : 

“  Turn  ye  unto  Me  with  all  your  heart, 

And  with  fasting,  and  with  weeping,  and  with  lamentation ; 

And  rend  your  heart,  and  not  your  garments, 

And  turn  unto  the  Lord  your  God ; 

For  He  is  gracious  and  compassionate, 

Long-suffering,  and  abundant  in  mercy, 

And  repenteth  Him  of  the  evil.”  1 

This  prophetic  view,  which  demands  contrition  and  crav¬ 
ing  for  God  instead  of  external  modes  of  atonement,  is  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  penitential  Psalms  as  well,2  especially  in  Psalm 
LI.  The  idea  is  expanded  further  in  the  parable  of  the 
prophet  Jonah,  which  conveys  the  lesson  that  even  a  heathen 
nation  like  the  people  of  Nineveh  can  avert  the  impending 
judgment  of  God  by  true  repentance.3  From  this  point  of 
view  the  whole  conception  took  on  a  larger  aspect,  and  the 
entire  history  of  mankind  was  seen  in  a  new  light.  The 
Jewish  sages  realized  that  God  punishes  man  only  when  the 
expected  change  of  mind  and  heart  fails  to  come.4 

5.  The  Jewish  plan  of  divine  salvation  presents  a  striking 
contrast  to  that  of  the  Church,  for  it  is  built  upon  the  pre¬ 
sumption  that  all  sinners  can  find  their  way  back  to  God  and 
godliness,  if  they  but  earnestly  so  desire.  Even  before  God 
created  the  world,  He  determined  to  offer  man  the  possibility 
of  Teshubah ,  so  that,  in  the  midst  of  the  continual  struggle 
with  the  allurements  of  the  senses,  the  repentant  sinner  can 
ever  change  heart  and  mind  and  return  to  God.5  Without 
such  a  possibility  the  world  of  man  could  not  endure ;  thus, 
because  no  man  can  stand  before  the  divine  tribunal  of  stern 
justice,  the  paternal  arm  of  a  merciful  God  is  extended  to 

1  Joel  II,  1 2-13.  2  See  Ps.  XXXII,  1  f.  3  Jonah  III-IV. 

4  The  Hebrew  teshubah  is  translated  in  Greek  metanoia,  meaning  a  change 
of  mind. 

6  Pes.  1 19  a;  P.  d.  R.  El.  XLIII. 


REPENTANCE  OR  THE  RETURN  TO  GOD 


251 


receive  the  penitent.  This  sublime  truth  is  constantly  reit¬ 
erated  in  the  Talmud  and  in  the  liturgy,  especially  of  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement.1  Not  only  does  God’s  long-suffer¬ 
ing  give  the  sinner  time  to  repent;  His  paternal  love  urges 
him  to  return.  Thus  the  Haggadists  purposely  represent 
almost  all  the  sinners  mentioned  in  the  Bible  as  models  of 
sincere  repentance.  First  of  all  comes  King  David,  who  is 
considered  such  a  pattern  of  repentance,  as  the  author  of  the 
fifty-first  Psalm,  that  he  would  not  have  been  allowed  to  sin 
so  grievously,  if  he  had  not  been  providentially  appointed  as 
the  shining  example  of  the  penitent’s  return  to  God.2  Then 
there  is  King  Manasseh,  the  most  wicked  among  all  the 
kings  of  Judah  and  Israel,  who  had  committed  the  most 
abominable  sins  of  idolatrous  worship.  Referring  to  the  story 
told  of  him  in  Chronicles,  it  is  said  that  God  responded  to 
his  tearful  prayers  and  incessant  supplications  by  opening  a 
rift  under  His  throne  of  mercy  and  receiving  his  petition  for 
pardon.  Thus  all  mankind  might  see  that  none  can  be  so 
wicked  that  he  will  not  find  the  door  of  repentance  open,  if  he 
but  seek  it  sincerely  and  persistently.3  Likewise  Adam  and 
Cain,  Reuben  and  Judah,  Korah,  Jeroboam,  Ahab,  Josiah,  and 
Jechoniah  are  described  in  Talmud,  Midrash,  and  the  apoca¬ 
lyptic  literature  as  penitent  sinners  who  obtained  at  last  the 
coveted  pardon.4  The  optimistic  spirit  of  Judaism  cannot 
tolerate  the  idea  that  mortal  man  is  hopelessly  lost  under  the 
burden  of  his  sins,  or  that  he  need  ever  lose  faith  in  himself. 
No  one  can  sink  so  low  that  he  cannot  find  his  way  back  to 
his  heavenly  Father  by  untiring  self-discipline.  As  the 
Talmud  says,  nothing  can  finally  withstand  the  power  of 

1  Pes.  54  a;  Gen.  R.  I,  5;  P.  d.  R.  El.  Ill;  Singer’s  Prayerb.  267  f. 

2  Shab.  56  a;  Ab.  Z.  4  b-5  a;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  XL,  2;  LI,  13. 

3  Ter.  Sanh.  X,  78  c;  Sanh.  103  a;  Pes.  162 ;  Prayer  of  Manasseh. 

4  Pesik.  160  a-162  ;  Shab.  56  a,  b ;  Gen.  R.  XI,  6 ;  XXII,  12-13 ;  XXXVIII, 
9;  XLIX,  6;  P.  R.  El.  XX;  XLIII;  Num.  R.  XVIII,  6;  Ab.  d.  R.  N.  I,  32; 
Sanh.  102  b. 


252 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


sincere  repentance  :  “It  reaches  up  to  the  very  seat  of  God 
“upon  it  rests  the  welfare  of  the  world.”  1 

6.  The  rabbis  follow  up  the  idea  first  announced  in  the 
book  of  Jonah,  that  the  saving  power  of  repentance  applies 
to  the  heathen  world  as  well.  Thus  they  show  how  God 
constantly  offered  time  and  opportunity  to  the  heathens  for 
repentance.  For  example,  when  the  generation  of  the  flood, 
the  builders  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  and  the  people  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  were  to  be  punished,  God  waited  to  give  them 
time  for  repentance  and  improvement  of  their  ways.2  Noah, 
Enoch,  and  Abraham  are  represented  as  monitors  of  their 
contemporaries,  warning  them,  like  the  prophets,  to  repent 
in  time  lest  they  meet  their  doom.3  Thus  the  whole  Hellen¬ 
istic  literature  of  propaganda,  especially  the  Sibylline  books, 
echoes  the  warning  and  the  hope  that  the  heathen  should 
repent  of  their  grievous  sins  and  return  to  God,  whom  they 
had  deserted  in  idolatry,  so  that  they  might  escape  the  im¬ 
pending  doom  of  the  last  judgment  day.  According  to  one 
Haggadist,4  even  the  Messiah  will  appear  first  as  a  preacher 
of  repentance,  admonishing  the  heathen  nations  to  be  con¬ 
verted  to  the  true  God  and  repent  before  Him,  lest  they  fall 
into  perdition.  Indeed,  it  is  said  that  even  Pharaoh  and 
the  Egyptians  were  warned  and  given  time  for  repentance 
before  their  fate  overtook  them. 

7.  Accordingly,  the  principle  of  repentance  is  a  universal 
human  one,  and  by  no  means  exclusively  national,  as  the 
Christian  theologians  represent  it.5  The  sages  thus  describe 
Adam  as  the  type  of  the  penitent  sinner,  who  is  granted  par- 

1  Yoma  86  a,  b;  Pes.  R.  XLIX. 

2  Mek.  Shira  5;  Gen.  R.  XXI,  6;  XXX,  4;  XXXII,  10;  XXXVIII, 
14;  LXXXIV,  18;  Ex.  R.  XII,  1;  Num.  R.  XII,  13;  B.  Wisdom  XI,  23; 
XII,  10,  19. 

3  Sanh.  108;  Sibyllines,  I,  125-198. 

4  Cant.  R.  VII,  5,  ref.  to  the  name  Hadrach,  Zech.  IX,  1. 

6  Weber,  1.  c.,  261  f. ;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  446  f. ;  comp.  Perles  :  Bousset. 


REPENTANCE  OR  THE  RETURN  TO  GOD 


253 


don  by  God.  The  “sign”  of  Cain  also  was  to  be  a  sign  for 
all  sinners,  assuring  them  they  might  all  obtain  forgiveness 
and  salvation,  if  they  would  but  return  to  God.1  In  fact, 
the  prophetic  appeal  to  Israel  for  repentance,  vain  at  the 
time,  effected  the  regeneration  of  the  people  during  the 
Exile  and  gave  rise  to  Judaism  and  its  institutions.  In  the 
same  way,  the  appeal  to  the  heathen  world  by  the  Hellenistic 
propaganda  and  the  Essene  preachers  of  repentance  did  not 
induce  the  nations  at  once  to  prepare  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  but  finally  led  to  the  rise  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion,  and,  through  certain  intermediaries,  of  the 
Mohammedan  as  well. 

However,  the  long-cherished  hope  for  a  universal  conver¬ 
sion  of  the  heathen  world,  voiced  in  the  preachments  and  the 
prayers  of  the  “pious  ones,”  gave  way  to  a  reaction.  The 
rise  of  antinomian  sects  in  Judaism  occasioned  the  dropping 
of  this  pious  hope,  and  only  certain  individual  conversions 
were  dwelt  on  as  shining  exceptions.2  The  heathen  world 
in  general  was  not  regarded  as  disposed  to  repent,  and  so 
its  ultimate  fate  was  the  doom  of  Gehenna.  Experience 
seemed  to  confirm  the  stern  view,  which  rabbinical  interpre¬ 
tation  could  find  in  Scripture  also,  that  “Even  at  the  very 
gate  of  the  nether  world  wicked  men  shall  not  return.”  3 
The  growing  violence  of  the  oppressors  and  the  increasing 
number  of  the  maligners  of  Judaism  darkened  the  hope  for 
a  universal  conversion  of  humanity  to  the  pure  faith  of 
Israel  and  its  law  of  righteousness.  On  the  contrary,  a 
certain  satisfaction  was  felt  by  the  Jew  in  the  thought  that 
these  enemies  of  Judaism  should  not  be  allowed  to  repent  and 
obtain  salvation  in  the  hereafter.4 

8.  The  idea  of  repentance  was  applied  all  the  more  in¬ 
tensely  in  Jewish  life,  and  a  still  more  prominent  place  was 

1  Gen.  R.  XXII,  27;  comp.  Sanh.  107  b.  2  Mek.  Yithro  1. 

3  Erub.  19  a.  4  Mid.  Teh.  Ps.  I,  21  f. ;  IX,  13,  15;  XI,  5. 


254 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


accorded  it  in  Jewish  literature.  The  rabbis  have  number¬ 
less  sayings  1  in  the  Talmud  and  also  in  the  Haggadic  and 
ethical  writings  concerning  the  power  and  value  of  repent¬ 
ance.  In  passages  such  as  these  we  see  how  profoundly 
Judaism  dealt  with  the  failings  and  shortcomings  of  man. 
The  term  asa  teshubah ,  do  repentance,  implies  no  mere  ex¬ 
ternal  act  of  penitence,  as  Christian  theologians  often  assert. 
On  the  contrary,  the  chief  stress  is  always  laid  on  the  feeling 
of  remorse  and  on  the  change  of  heart  which  contrition  and 
self-accusation  bring.  Yet  even  these  would  not  be  sufficient 
to  cast  off  the  oppressive  consciousness  of  guilt,  unless  the 
contrite  heart  were  reassured  by  God  that  He  forgives  the 
penitent  son  of  man  with  paternal  grace  and  love.  In  other 
words,  religion  demands  a  special  means  of  atonement,  that  is, 
at-one-ment  with  God,  to  restore  the  broken  relation  of  man 
to  his  Maker.  The  true  spiritual  power  of  Judaism  appears 
in  this,  that  it  gradually  liberates  the  kernel  of  the  atonement 
idea  from  its  priestly  shell.  The  Jew  realizes,  as  does  the 
adherent  of  no  other  religion,  that  even  in  sin  he  is  a  child 
of  God  and  certain  of  His  paternal  love.  This  is  brought 
home  especially  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  which  will  be 
treated  in  a  later  chapter. 

9.  At  all  events,  the  blotting  out  of  man’s  sins  with  their 
punishment  remains  ever  an  act  of  grace  by  God.2  In  com¬ 
passion  for  man’s  frailty  He  has  ordained  repentance  as 
the  means  of  salvation,  and  promised  pardon  to  the  penitent. 
This  truth  is  brought  out  in  the  liturgy  for  the  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment,  as  well  as  in  the  Apocalyptic  Prayer  of  Manasseh. 
At  the  same  time,  Judaism  awards  the  palm  of  victory  to 
him  who  has  wrestled  with  sin  and  conquered  it  by  his  own 
will.  Thus  the  rabbis  boldly  assert:  “Those  who  have 

1  See  Maimonides,  Bahya,  and  others  on  Teshubah;  comp.  J.  E.,  art.  Re¬ 
pentance;  Tobit  XIII,  6;  XIV,  6;  Philo  II,  435. 

2  See  Schechter,  1.  c.,  323  f. 


REPENTANCE  OR  THE  RETURN  TO  GOD 


255 


sinned  and  repented  rank  higher  in  the  world  to  come  than 
the  righteous  who  have  never  sinned/’  which  is  paralleled 
in  the  New  Testament:  “There  is  more  joy  in  heaven  over 
one  sinner  who  repenteth  than  over  ninety  and  nine  righteous 
persons,  who  need  no  repentance.”  1  No  intermediary  power 
from  without  secures  the  divine  grace  and  pardon  for  the 
repentant  sinner,  but  his  own  inner  transformation  alone. 

1  Sanh.  99  a,  Luke  XV,  7.  The  third  Gospel  more  than  the  others 
preserved  the  original  Jewish  doctrines  of  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  XL 


Man,  the  Child  of  God 

1.  The  belief  that  God  hears  our  prayers  and  pardons  our 
sins  rests  upon  the  assumption  of  a  mutual  relation  between 
man  and  God.  This  belief  is  insusceptible  of  proof,  but  rests 
entirely  upon  our  religious  feelings  and  is  rooted  purely  in 
our  emotional  life.  We  apply  to  the  relation  between  man 
and  God  the  finest  feelings  known  in  human  life,  the  de¬ 
votion  and  love  of  parents  for  their  children  and  the  affection 
and  trust  the  child  entertains  for  its  parents.  Thus  we  are  led 
to  the  conviction  that  earth-born  man  has  a  Helper  enthroned 
in  the  heavens  above,  who  hearkens  when  he  implores  Him 
for  aid.  In  his  innermost  heart  man  feels  that  he  has  a  special 
claim  on  the  divine  protection.  In  the  words  of  Job,1  he  knows 
that  his  Redeemer  liveth.  He  need  not  perish  in  misery. 
Unlike  the  brute  creation  and  the  hosts  of  stars,  which  know 
nothing  of  their  Maker,  man  feels  akin  to  the  God  who  lives 
within  him;  he  is  His  image,  His  child.  He  cannot  be  de¬ 
prived  of  His  paternal  love  and  favor.  This  truly  human 
emotion  is  nowhere  expressed  so  clearly  as  in  Judaism.  “Ye 
are  the  children  of  the  Lord  your  God.”  2  “Have  we  not  all 
one  Father?  Hath  not  one  God  created  us?”3  “Like  as 
a  father  hath  compassion  on  his  children,  so  hath  the  Lord 
compassion  upon  them  that  fear  Him.” 4 

2.  Still,  this  simple  idea  of  man’s  filial  relation  to  God  and 
God’s  paternal  love  for  man  did  not  begin  in  its  beautiful  final 
form.  For  a  long  time  the  Jew  seems  to  have  avoided  the 

1  Job  XIX,  25.  The  Hebrew  Goel  signifies  kinsman  as  well  as  redeemer  and 
avenger,  implying  blood-relationship.  In  Job  it  means  vindicator. 

2  Deut.  XIV,  1.  s  Mai.  II,  10.  *  Ps.  CIII,  13. 

256 


257 


MAN,  THE  CHILD  OF  GOD 

term  “  Father  ”  for  God,  because  it  was  used  by  the  heathen  for 
their  deities  as  physical  progenitors,  and  did  not  refer  to  the 
moral  relation  between  the  Deity  and  mankind.  Thus 
worshipers  of  wooden  idols  would,  according  to  Scripture, 
“say  to  a  stock,  Thou  art  my  father.”  1  Hosea  was  the  first 
to  call  the  people  of  Israel  “children  of  the  living  God,”2  if 
they  would  but  improve  their  ways  and  enter  into  right  re¬ 
lations  with  Him.  Jeremiah  also  hopes  for  the  time  when 
Israel  would  invoke  the  Lord,  saying,  “Thou  art  my  Father,” 
and  in  return  God  would  prove  a  true  father  to  him.3  How¬ 
ever,  Scripture  calls  God  a  Father  only  in  referring  to  the 
people  as  a  whole.4  The  “pious  ones”  established  a  closer 
relation  between  God  and  the  individual  by  means  of  prayer, 
so  that  through  them  the  epithets,  “Father,”  “Our  Father,” 
and  “Our  Father  in  heaven”  came  into  general  use.  Hence, 
the  liturgy  frequently  uses  the  invocation,  “Our  Father, 
Our  King!”  We  owe  to  Rabbi  Akiba  the  significant  saying, 
in  opposition  to  the  Paulinian  dogma,  “Blessed  are  ye,  O 
Israelites  !  Before  whom  do  you  purify  yourselves  (from  your 
sins)?  And  who  is  it  that  purifies  you?  Your  Father  in 
heaven.”  5  Previously  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos  dwelt 
on  the  moral  degeneration  of  his  age,  which  betokened  the 
end  of  time,  and  exclaimed:  “In  whom,  then,  shall  we  find 
support?  In  our  Father  who  is  in  heaven.”  6  The  ap¬ 
pellative  “Father  in  heaven”  was  the  stereotyped  term  used 
by  the  “pious  ones”  during  the  century  preceding  and  the 
one  following  the  rise  of  Christianity,  as  a  glance  at  the 
literature  of  the  period  indicates.7 

3.  It  is  instructive  to  follow  the  history  of  this  term.  In 
Scripture  God  is  represented  as  speaking  to  David,  “  I  will  be 

1  Jer.  II,  27.  2  Hosea  II,  1.  3  See  Jer.  Ill,  4. 

4  Jer.  XXXI,  9;  Deut.  XXXII,  7;  Isa.  LXIII,  16;  LXIV,  7;  Mai.  I,  4; 
I  Chron.  XXIX,  10. 

6  Yoma  VIII,  9.  6  Sota  IX,  15. 

7  See  next  paragraph,  and  the  art.  Abba  in  J.  E. 


s 


258 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


to  him  for  a  father,  and  he  shall  be  to  Me  for  a  son,”  1  or  “He 
shall  call  unto  Me :  Thou  art  my  Father,  ...  I  also  will 
appoint  him  first-born.” 2  So  in  the  apocryphal  writings 
God  speaks  both  to  Israel  and  to  individual  saints:  “I  shall 
be  to  them  a  Father,  and  they  shall  be  My  children.”  3  Else¬ 
where  it  is  said  of  the  righteous,  “He  calls  God  his  Father,” 
and  “he  shall  be  counted  among  the  sons  of  God.”  4  We 
read  concerning  the  Messiah :  “When  all  wrongdoing  will  be 
removed  from  the  midst  of  the  people,  he  shall  know  that 
all  are  sons  of  God.”  5  Obviously  only  righteousness  or  per¬ 
sonal  merit  entitles  a  man  to  be  called  a  son  of  God.  In 
fact,  we  are  expressly  told  of  Onias,  the  great  Essene  saint, 
that  his  intimate  relation  with  God  emboldened  him  to  con¬ 
verse  with  the  Master  of  the  Universe  as  a  son  would  speak 
with  his  father.6  According  to  the  Mishnah  the  older  gener¬ 
ation  of  “pious  ones”  used  to  spend  “an  hour  in  silent  de¬ 
votion  before  offering  their  daily  prayer,  in  order  to  concen¬ 
trate  heart  and  soul  upon  their  communion  with  their  Father 
in  heaven.”  7  Thus  it  is  said  of  congregational  prayer  that 
through  it  “Israel  lifts  his  eyes  to  his  Father  in  heaven.”  8 
In  this  way  prayer  took  the  place  of  the  altar,  of  which  R. 
Johanan  ben  Zakkai  said  that  it  established  peace  between 
Israel  and  his  Father  in  heaven.9  Afterwards  the  question 
was  discussed  by  Rabbi  Meir  and  Rabbi  Jehuda  whether  even 
sin-laden  Israel  had  a  right  to  be  called  “children  of  God.” 
Rabbi  Meir  pointed  to  Hosea  as  proof  that  the  backsliders  also 
remain  “children  of  the  living  God.”  10 

4.  In  the  Hellenistic  literature,  with  its  dominating  idea 
of  universal  monotheism,  God  is  frequently  invoked  or  spoken 
of  as  the  Father  of  mankind.  The  implication  is  that  each 

1 II  Sam.  VII,  14.  2  Ps.  LXXXIX,  27-28.  3  Jubilees  I,  24. 

4  Wisdom  II,  16;  V,  5.  6  Psalms  of  Solomon  XVII,  27. 

3  Taan.  Ill,  8.  2  Ber.  V,  1.  8  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  CXXI,  1. 

9  Mek.  Yithro  11.  10  Sifre  Deut.  96;  Hosea  I,  10. 


MAN,  THE  CHILD  OF  GOD 


259 


person  who  invokes  God  as  Father  enters  into  filial  relation 
with  Him.  Thus  what  was  first  applied  to  Israel  in  par¬ 
ticular  was  now  broadened  to  include  mankind  in  general, 
and  consequently  all  men  were  considered  “  children  of  the 
living  God.”  The  words  of  God  to  Pharaoh,  speaking  of 
Israel  as  His  “ first-born  son,”  1  were  taken  as  proof  that  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  are  sons  of  God  and  He  the  universal 
Father.  Israel  is  the  first-born  among  the  sons  of  God,  be¬ 
cause  his  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  psalmists  first  recognized 
Him  as  the  universal  Father  and  Ruler.  From  this  point  of 
view  Judaism  declared  love  for  fellow-men  and  regard  for  the 
dignity  of  humanity  to  be  fundamental  principles  of  ethics. 
“As  God  is  kind  and  merciful  toward  His  creation,  be  thou 
also  kind  and  merciful  toward  all  fellow-creatures,”  is  the  oft- 
repeated  teaching  of  the  rabbis.2  Likewise,  “Whoever  takes 
pity  on  his  fellow-beings,  on  him  God  in  heaven  will  also  take 
pity.”  3  Love  of  humanity  has  so  permeated  the  nature  of 
the  Jew  that  the  rabbis  assert :  “He  who  has  pity  on  his  fel¬ 
low-men  has  the  blood  of  Abraham  in  his  veins.”  4  This 
bold  remark  casts  light  upon  the  strange  dictum:  “Ye 
Israelites  are  called  by  the  name  of  man,  but  the  heathen  are 
not.”  5  The  Jewish  teachers  were  so  deeply  impressed  with 
man’s  inhumanity  to  man,  so  common  among  the  heathen 
nations,  and  the  immorality  of  the  lives  by  which  these  dese¬ 
crated  God’s  image,  that  they  insisted  that  the  laws  of  hu¬ 
manity  alone  make  for  divine  dignity  in  man. 

5.  Rabbi  Akiba  probably  referred  to  the  Paulinian  dogma 
that  Jesus,  the  crucified  Messiah,  is  the  only  son  of  God,  in 
his  well-known  saying:  “Beloved  is  man,  for  he  is  created 
in  God’s  image,  and  it  was  a  special  token  of  love  that  he  be¬ 
came  conscious  of  it.  Beloved  is  Israel,  for  they  are  called 
the  children  of  God,  and  it  was  a  special  token  of  love  that  they 

1  Ex.  IV,  22.  2  Sifre  Deut.  49.  3  Sifre  Deut.  96. 

4  Beza  32  b.  6  Yeb.  61  a. 


260 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


became  conscious  of  it.”  1  Here  he  claims  the  glory  of  being 
a  son  of  God  for  Israel,  but  not  for  all  men.  Still,  as  soon  as 
the  likeness  of  man  to  God  is  taken  in  a  spiritual  sense,  then 
it  is  implied  that  all  men  have  the  same  capacity  for  being  a 
son  of  God  which  is  claimed  for  Israel.  This  is  unquestion¬ 
ably  the  view  of  Judaism  when  it  considers  the  Torah  as  en¬ 
trusted  to  Israel  to  bring  light  and  blessing  to  all  the  families 
of  men.  Rabbi  Meir,  the  disciple  of  Rabbi  Akiba,  said : 
“The  Scriptural  words,  ‘The  statutes  and  ordinances  which 
man  shall  do  and  live  thereby,’  and  similar  expressions  indi¬ 
cate  that  the  final  aim  of  Judaism  is  not  attained  by  the 
Aaronide,  nor  the  Levite,  nor  even  the  Israelite,  but  by  man¬ 
kind.”  2  Such  a  saying  expresses  clearly  and  emphatically 
that  God’s  fatherly  love  extends  to  all  men  as  His  children. 

6.  According  to  the  religious  consciousness  of  modern  Israel 
man  is  made  in  God’s  image,  and  is  thus  a  child  of  God.  Con¬ 
sequently  Jew  and  non- Jew,  saint  and  sinner  have  the  same 
claim  upon  God’s  paternal  love  and  mercy.  There  is  no 
distinction  in  favor  of  Israel  except  as  he  lives  a  higher  and 
more  god-like  life.  Even  those  who  have  fallen  away  from 
God  and  have  committed  crime  and  sin  remain  God’s  children. 
If  they  send  up  their  penitent  cry  to  the  throne  of  God, 
“Pardon  us,  O  Father,  for  we  have  sinned!  Forgive  us,  O 
King,  for  we  have  done  evil!”;  their  prayer  is  heard  by  the 
heavenly  Father  exactly  like  that  of  the  pious  son  of  Israel. 

1  Aboth  III,  13,  quoted  above,  Chap.  XXXIV,  par.  6. 

2  Sifra  Ahare  13,  p.  86. 


CHAPTER  XLI 


Prayer  and  Sacrifice 

1.  The  gap  between  man  and  the  sublime  Master  of  the 
universe  is  vast,  but  not  absolute.  The  thoughts  of  God  are 
high  above  our  thoughts,  and  the  ways  of  God  above  our 
ways,  baffling  our  reason  when  we  endeavor  to  solve  the 
vexatious  problems  of  destiny,  of  merit  and  demerit,  of  ret¬ 
ribution  and  atonement.  Yet  religion  offers  a  wondrous 
medium  to  bring  the  heart  of  man  into  close  communion  with 
Him  who  is  enthroned  above  the  heavens,  one  that  overleaps 
all  distances,  removes  all  barriers,  and  blends  all  dissonances 
into  one  great  harmony,  and  that  is  —  Prayer.  As  the  child 
must  relieve  itself  of  its  troubles  and  sorrows  upon  the  bosom 
of  its  mother  or  father  in  order  to  turn  its  pain  into  gladness, 
so  men  at  all  times  seek  to  approach  the  Deity,  confiding  to 
Him  all  their  fears  and  longings  in  order  to  obtain  peace  of 
heart.  Prayer,  communion  between  the  human  soul  and 
the  Creator,  is  the  glorious  privilege  enjoyed  by  man  alone 
among  all  creatures,  as  he  alone  is  the  child  of  God.  It 
voices  the  longing  of  the  human  heart  for  its  Father  in  heaven. 
As  the  Psalmist  has  it,  “My  soul  thirsteth  for  God,  for  the 
living  God.”  1 

2.  However,  both  language,  the  means  of  intercourse  be¬ 
tween  man  and  man,  and  prayer,  the  means  of  intercourse 
between  man  and  God,  show  traces  of  a  slow  development 
lasting  for  thousands  of  years,  until  the  loftiest  thoughts  and 

1  Ps.  XLII,  3. 

261 


2  62 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


sublimes!  emotions  could  be  expressed.  The  real  efficacy  of 
prayer  could  not  be  truly  appreciated,  until  the  prophetic 
spirit  triumphed  over  the  priestly  element  in  Judaism.  In 
the  history  of  speech  the  language  of  signs  preceded  that  of 
sounds,  and  images  gradually  ripened  into  abstract  thoughts. 
Similarly,  primitive  man  approaches  his  God  with  many  kinds 
of  gifts  and  sacrificial  rites  to  express  his  sentiments.  He  acts 
out  or  depicts  what  he  expects  from  the  Deity,  whether  rain, 
fertility  of  the  soil,  or  the  extermination  of  his  foes.  He 
shares  with  his  God  his  food  and  drink,  to  obtain  His  friend¬ 
ship  and  protection  in  time  of  trouble,  and  sacrifices  the  dear¬ 
est  of  his  possessions  to  assuage  His  wrath  or  obtain  His  favor. 

3.  In  the  lowest  stage  of  culture  man  needed  no  mediator 
in  his  intercourse  with  the  Deity,  who  appeared  to  him  in  the 
phenomena  of  nature  as  well  as  in  the  fetish,  totem,  and  the 
like.  But  soon  he  rose  to  a  higher  stage  of  thought,  and  the 
Deity  withdrew  before  him  to  the  celestial  heights,  filling  him 
with  awe  and  fear ;  then  rose  a  class  of  men  who  claimed  the 
privilege  to  approach  the  Deity  and  influence  Him  by  certain 
secret  practices.  Henceforth  these  acted  as  mediators  be¬ 
tween  the  mass  of  the  people  and  the  Deity.  In  the  first 
place,  these  were  the  magicians,  medicine-men,  and  similar 
persons,  who  were  credited  with  the  power  to  conjure  up  the 
hidden  forces  of  nature,  considered  either  divine  or  demoniac. 
After  these  arose  the  priests,  distinguished  from  the  people 
by  special  dress  and  diet,  who  established  in  the  various  tribes 
temples,  altars,  and  cults,  under  their  own  control.  Then 
there  were  the  saints,  pious  penitents  or  Nazarites,  who  led 
an  ascetic  life  secluded  from  the  masses,  hoping  thus  to  ob¬ 
tain  higher  powers  over  the  will  of  the  Deity.  All  these  en¬ 
tertained  more  or  less  clearly  the  notion  that  they  stood  in 
closer  relation  to  the  Deity  than  the  common  people,  whom 
they  then  excluded  from  the  sanctuary  and  all  access  to  the 
Deity. 


PRAYER  AND  SACRIFICE 


263 


The  Mosaic  cult,  in  the  so-called  Priestly  Code,  was  founded 
upon  this  stage  of  religious  life,  forming  a  hierarchical  in¬ 
stitution  like  those  of  other  ancient  nations.  It  differed 
from  them,  however,  in  one  essential  point.  The  prime  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  cult  of  other  nations  was  magic,  consisting  of 
oracle,  incantation  and  divination,  but  this  was  entirely  con¬ 
trary  to  the  principles  of  the  Jewish  faith.  On  the  other 
hand,  all  the  rites  and  ceremonies  handed  down  from  remote 
antiquity  were  placed  in  the  service  of  Israel’s  holy  God,  in 
order  to  train  His  people  into  the  highest  moral  purity. 
The  patriarchs  and  prophets,  who  are  depicted  in  Scripture 
as  approaching  God  in  prayer  and  hearing  His  voice  in  reply, 
come  under  the  category  of  saints  or  elect  ones,  above  the 
mass  of  the  people. 

4.  Foreign  as  the  entire  idea  of  sacrifice  is  to  our  mode  of 
religious  thought,  to  antiquity  it  appeared  as  the  only  means 
of  intercourse  with  the  Deity.  “In  every  place  offerings  are 
presented  unto  My  name,  even  pure  oblations,”  1  says  the 
prophet  Malachi  in  the  name  of  Israel’s  God.  Even  from  a 
higher  point  of  view  the  underlying  idea  seems  to  be  of  a 
simple  offering  laid  upon  the  altar.  Such  were  the  meal¬ 
offering  (: minha ) ; 2  the  burnt  offering  {plait) ,  which  sends  its 
pillar  of  smoke  up  toward  heaven,  symbolizing  the  idea  of 
self-sacrifice ;  while  the  various  sin-offerings  ( hattath  or 
asham)  expressed  the  desire  to  propitiate  an  offended  Deity. 
However,  since  the  sacrificial  cult  was  always  dominated  by 
the  priesthood  in  Israel  as  well  as  other  nations,  the  lawgiver 
made  no  essential  changes  in  the  traditional  practice  and 
terminology.  Thus  it  was  left  to  the  consciousness  of  the 
people  to  find  a  deeper  spiritual  meaning  in  the  sacrifices 

1  Mai.  I,  11. 

2  With  its  azkarah ,  the  flame  of  incense  rising  in  “pyramidal”  form,  generally 
translated  “memorial,”  or  “memorial -part.”  Lev.  II,  9,  16.  For  sacrifice 
as  means  of  atonement  see  Schechter:  Aspects ,  295-301. 


264 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


instead  of  stating  one  directly.  The  want  was  supplied  only 
by  the  later  Haggadists  who  tried  to  create  a  symbolism  of  the 
sacrificial  cult.  The  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  individual  who 
brought  the  offering,  seems  to  have  been  a  genuine  symbolic 
expression  of  self-surrender.  In  the  case  of  sin-offerings  the 
Mosaic  cult  added  a  higher  meaning  by  ordering  a  preceding 
confession  of  sin.  Here,  indeed,  the  individual  entered  into 
personal  communion  with  God  through  his  prayer  for  pardon, 
even  though  the  priest  performed  the  act  of  expiation  for 
him. 

5.  The  great  prophets  of  Israel  alone  recognized  that 
the  entire  sacrificial  system  was  out  of  harmony  with  the 
true  spirit  of  Judaism  and  led  to  all  sorts  of  abuses,  above 
all  to  a  misconception  of  the  worship  of  God,  which  requires 
the  uplifting  of  the  heart.  In  impassioned  language,  there¬ 
fore,  they  hurled  words  of  scathing  denunciation  against  the 
practice  and  principle  of  ritualism:  “I  hate,  I  despise  your 
feasts,  and  I  will  take  no  delight  in  your  solemn  assemblies. 

Yea,  though  ye  offer  Me  burnt-offerings  and  your  meal- 
offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them ;  Neither  will  I  regard  the 
peace-offerings  of  your  fat  beasts. 

Take  thou  away  from  Me  the  noise  of  thy  songs ;  and  let 
Me  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  psalteries. 

But  let  justice  well  up  as  waters,  and  righteousness  as  a 
mighty  stream.”  1 

Thus  speaks  Amos  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  Hosea  : 

“For  I  desire  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice,  and  the  knowledge 
of  God  rather  than  burnt-offerings.”  2 

Isaiah  spoke  in  a  similar  vein : 

“To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto 
Me?  saith  the  Lord;  I  am  full  of  the  burnt-offerings  of 
rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts;  and  I  delight  not  in  the 
blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats.  .  .  . 

1  Amos  V,  21-24.  2  Hosea  VI,  6. 


PRAYER  AND  SACRIFICE 


265 


Bring  me  no  more  vain  oblations;  it  is  an  offering  of 
abomination  unto  Me ;  new  moon  and  sabbath,  the  holding 
of  convocations  —  I  cannot  endure  iniquity  along  with  the 
solemn  assembly.  .  .  . 

And  when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide  Mine  eyes 
from  you  ;  yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I  will  not  hear ; 
your  hands  are  full  of  blood. 

Wash  you,  make  you  clean,  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings 
From  before  Mine  eyes,  cease  to  do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well ; 
seek  justice,  relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead 
for  the  widow.”  1 

Most  striking  of  all  are  the  words  of  Jeremiah,  spoken  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  “Add  your 
burnt-offerings  unto  your  sacrifices,  and  eat  ye  flesh.  For 
I  spoke  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the 
day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concern¬ 
ing  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices,  but  this  thing  I  commanded 
them,  saying;  ‘ Hearken  unto  My  voice,  and  I  will  be  your 
God,  and  ye  shall  be  My  people ;  and  walk  ye  in  all  the  way 
that  I  command  you,  that  it  may  be  well  with  you.’”  2 

6.  However,  the  mere  rejection  of  the  sacrificial  cult  was 
quite  negative,  and  did  not  satisfy  the  normal  need  for  com¬ 
munion  with  God.  Therefore  the  various  codes  established 
a  sort  of  compromise  between  the  prophetic  ideal  and  the 
priestly  practice,  in  which  the  ideal  was  by  no  means  supreme. 
Sometimes  the  prophetic  spirit  stirred  the  soul  of  inspired  psalm¬ 
ists,  and  their  lips  echoed  forth  again  the  divine  revelation : 

“Hear,  O  My  people,  and  I  will  speak;  O  Israel,  and  I 
will  testify  against  thee :  God,  thy  God,  am  I.  I  will  not 
reprove  thee  for  thy  sacrifices ;  and  thy  burnt-offerings  are 
continually  before  Me.  I  will  take  no  bullock  out  of  thy 
house,  nor  he-goats  out  of  thy  folds.  For  every  beast  of  the 
forest  is  Mine,  and  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills.  .  .  . 

1  Isa.  I,  11-18.  1  Jer.  VII,  21-23. 


266 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Do  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls,  or  drink  the  blood  of 
goats?”1  Another  psalmist  says:  “ Sacrifice  and  meal¬ 
offering  thou  hast  no  delight  in ;  Mine  ears  hast  Thou 
opened ;  burnt-offering  and  sin-offering  hast  Thou  not 
required.”  2 

Still,  the  sacrificial  cult  was  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  life  of 
the  people  to  be  disturbed  by  the  voice  of  the  prophets  or 
the  words  of  a  few  psalmists.  It  was  connected  with  the 
Temple,  and  the  Temple  was  the  center  of  the  social  life  of 
the  nation.  The  few  faint  voices  of  protest  went  practically 
unheeded.  The  priestly  pomp  of  sacrifice  could  only  be  dis¬ 
placed  by  the  more  elevating  and  more  spiritual  devotion  of 
the  entire  congregation  in  prayer,  and  this  process  demanded 
a  new  environment,  and  a  group  of  men  with  entirely  new 
ideas. 

7.  The  need  of  a  deeper  devotion  through  prayer  was  not 
felt  until  the  Exile.  There  altar  and  priesthood  were  no 
more,  but  the  words  of  the  prophets  and  the  songs  of  the 
Levites  remained  to  kindle  the  people’s  longing  for  God  with 
a  new  zeal.  Until  then  prayer  was  rare  and  for  special  oc¬ 
casions.  Hannah’s  prayer  at  Shiloh  filled  even  the  high 
priest  with  amazement.3  The  prophets  alone  interceded  in 
behalf  of  the  people,  because  the  ordinary  man  was  not  con¬ 
sidered  sufficiently  clean  from  sin  to  approach  the  Deity  in 
prayer.  But  on  foreign  soil,  where  sacrifices  could  not  be 
offered  to  the  God  of  Israel,  the  harp  of  David  resounded  with 
solemn  songs  expressing  the  national  longing  toward  God. 
The  most  touching  psalms  of  penitence  and  thanksgiving  date 
from  the  exile.  A  select  class  of  devout  men,  called  the  godly 
or  pious  ones,  Hasidim  or  Anavim ,4  assembled  by  the  rivers 
of  Babylon  for  regular  prayer,  turning  their  faces  toward 

1  Ps.  L,  7-13.  2  Ps.  XL,  7.  3 1  Sam.  I,  13-14. 

4  Often  mentioned  in  the  Psalms,  under  such  terms  as  “the  congregation 
of  the  righteous,”  “the  holy  ones,”  “the  devout  ones,”  etc. 


PRAYER  AND  SACRIFICE 


267 


Jerusalem,  that  the  God  of  Israel  might  answer  them  from 
His  ancient  seat.1  Thus  the  great  seer  of  the  exile  voiced  the 
hope  for  “a  house  of  prayer  for  all  peoples”  to  stand  in 
the  very  place  where  the  sacrifices  were  offered  to  God.2 
The  congregation  of  Hasidim  elaborated  a  liturgy  under  the 
Persian  influence,  in  which  prayer  was  the  chief  element,  and 
the  secondary  part,  the  instruction  from  the  Torah  and  the 
monitions  of  the  prophets.  The  Synagogue,  the  house  of 
meeting  for  the  people,  spread  all  over  the  world,  and  by  its 
light  of  truth  and  glow  of  fervor  it  soon  eclipsed  the  Temple, 
with  all  its  worldly  pomp.  In  fact,  the  priesthood  of  the 
Temple  were  finally  compelled  to  make  concessions  to  the 
lay  movement  of  the  Hasidim.  They  added  a  prayer 
service,  morning  and  evening,  to  the  daily  sacrifices,  and 
opened  the  Hall  of  Hewn  Stones,  the  meeting  place  of 
the  High  Court  of  Justice,  as  a  Synagogue  in  charge  of  the 
priests.3 

8.  In  this  manner  the  ancient  sacrificial  cult,  thus  long 
monopolized  by  the  priesthood,  was  gradually  superseded 
by  congregational  prayer  which  was  no  longer  confined  to  a 
certain  time  or  class,  and  justly  called  by  the  rabbis  “a  serv¬ 
ice  of  the  heart.”  4  Moreover,  the  Temple  itself  lost  much 
of  its  hold  upon  the  hearts  of  the  people,  owing  to  the  more 
spiritual  character  of  the  Synagogue.  Thus  the  torch  of  the 
Roman  soldiery  which  turned  the  Temple  into  a  heap  of  ashes 
broke  only  the  national  bond,  but  left  the  religious  bond  of  the 
Synagogue  unbroken.  True,  the  hope  for  the  restoration  of 
the  Temple  with  the  priestly  sacrifices  was  not  relinquished, 
and  officially  the  daily  prayers  were  considered  only  a  “tem¬ 
porary  substitute”  for  the  divinely  ordained  sacrificial  cult.5 

1  See  I  Kings  VIII,  48 ;  Dan.  VI,  11.  2  Isa.  LVI,  7. 

3  Tamid  V,  i;  comp.  Kohler:  Monatsschr.,  1893,  p.  441. 

4  Sifre  Deut.  41 :  “What  is  meant  by,  ‘To  serve  Him  with  all  your  heart?’ 
this  is  prayer.” 

6  Ber.  26  a. 


268 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Nevertheless,  the  deeper  religious  consciousness  of  the  people 
felt  that  the  celestial  gate  of  divine  mercy  opens  only  to 
prayer,  which  emanates  from  the  innermost  depths  of  the 
soul.  Accordingly,  some  of  the  Haggadists  try  to  prove  from 
Scripture  that  prayer  ranks  above  sacrifice,1  while  others 
even  identify  worship  with  prayer.2  They  represent  God  as 
appearing  to  Moses  in  the  guise  of  one  who  leads  the  congre¬ 
gation  in  prayer,  His  face  covered  by  the  prayer-shawl  ( tallith ), 
in  order  to  teach  man  for  all  time  the  mode  and  power  of 
prayer.3  Still  these  remain  isolated  expressions  of  an  un¬ 
derlying  sentiment ;  on  the  whole,  the  rabbis  regarded  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  with  its  emphasis  on  sacrifice,  far  too 
highly  to  accord  prayer  any  but  a  secondary  place,  either 
accompanying  sacrifice  or  as  its  substitute.4 

9.  Through  many  centuries,  then,  the  belief  in  the  divine 
origin  of  the  sacrificial  cult  remained,  even  though  it  could 
no  longer  be  carried  out.  The  liturgy  contained  prayers 
for  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  Temple  and  the  sacrifices, 
which  were  preserved  by  tradition,  and  nowhere  was  even  an 
echo  heard  of  the  bold  words  of  Jeremiah  denying  the  divine 
character  of  the  sacrifices,5  even  though  the  idea  of  the  res¬ 
toration  of  the  old  cult  must  have  been  repugnant  to  thinkers. 
The  sages  of  former  ages  could  only  resort  to  a  compromise 
or  an  allegorical  interpretation.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the 
Haggadist  Rabbi  Levi  considered  the  sacrifices  a  concession 
of  God  to  the  people,  who  were  disposed  to  idolatry,  in  order 
to  win  them  gradually  for  the  pure  monotheistic  ideal.6  This 
view  was  adopted  by  the  Church  Fathers,  and  later  by  Mai- 
monides  and  other  medieval  thinkers.  On  the  other  hand, 
an  allegorical  meaning  was  assigned  to  the  sacrifices  by  Philo 

1  Ber.  32  b;  Midr.  to  Sam.  I,  7.  2  P.  d.  R.  El.  XVI. 

3  R.  ha  Sh.  17  b. 

4  Meg.  31  b;  Yer.  Taan.  IV,  68  c.  But  compare  Isaac  Aboab  :  Menorath 
ha  Maor,  III,  3  a ;  Bahya  ben  Asher  :  Kad  ha  Kemah,  art.  Tefillah. 

6  Jer.  VI,  22.  6  Lev.  R.  XXII,  5. 


PRAYER  AND  SACRIFICE  269 

and  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  as  well  as  by  Samson  Raphael  Hirsch  in 
modern  times.1 

Reform  Judaism,  recognizing  the  results  of  Biblical  research 
and  the  law  of  religious  progress,  adopted  the  prophetic  view 
of  the  sacrifices.  Accordingly,  the  sacrificial  cult  of  the 
Mosaic  code  has  no  validity  for  the  liberal  movement,  and 
all  reference  to  it  has  been  eliminated  from  the  reform  liturgy. 
In  this,  however,  the  connection  with  the  past  was  by  no  means 
severed.  The  main  part  of  the  service  remains  the  same, 
although  much  of  the  character  and  many  of  the  details  have 
been  changed.2  Only  the  allusions  to  the  Temple  worship  and 
the  sacrifices  were  eliminated,  and  the  entire  form  of  the 
service  was  made  more  solemn  and  inspiring  “  by  combining 
ancient  time-honored  formulas  with  modern  prayers  and 
meditations  in  the  vernacular  and  in  the  spirit  of  the  age.” 
The  morning  and  evening  services  retained  their  places,  while 
the  additional  festal  service  ( mussaf )  was  abrogated,  because 
it  stood  for  the  additional  festal  sacrifice.  As  to  the  volun¬ 
tary  element  in  the  old  sacrificial  system,  the  peace,  sin,  and 
thank-offerings,  this  is  replaced  in  the  reform  ritual,  as  in 
the  traditional  practice,  by  private  devotions  for  special 
occasions,  to  be  selected  by  the  individual. 

The  traditional  Jewish  prayer  has  certainly  a  wondrous 
force.  It  remains  a  source  of  inspiration  from  which  the 
religious  consciousness  will  ever  draw  new  strength  and 
vitality.  It  echoes  the  voice  of  Israel  singing  the  song  of 
redemption  by  the  Red  Sea:  “This  is  My  God,  and  I  will 

1  Cuzari,  II,  25,  see  note  by  Cassel ;  Moreh,  III,  32  ;  comp.  Midrash  Tadshe 
12  ;  I,  177  f. ;  comp.  Hebrews  IX-X ;  Barnabas,  I,  25.  S.  R.  Hirsch  in  Horeb 
p.  639  f. 

2  See  Philipson :  The  Reform  Movement  in  Judaism  for  the  various  views 
and  debates  on  sacrifice  and  prayer.  I.  Elbogen :  D.  jued.  Gottesdienst  i.  s. 
geschichtl.  Entwicklung,  p.  374  f.,435  f.,  is  written  in  a  more  conservative  spirit 
and  unfavorable  to  American  Reform  Judaism.  Comp,  for  the  traditional 
liturgy :  Dembitz  :  Jewish  Services  in  the  Synagogue  and  Home,  especially  on 
the  Prayerbook,  p.  233-246,  and  for  America,  497-499. 


270  JEWISH  THEOLOGY 

glorify  Him;  My  father’s  God,  and  I  will  exalt  Him.”1 
Consequently  our  liturgy  must  ever  respond  to  a  double 
demand ;  it  must  throb  with  the  spirit  of  continuity  with 
our  great  past,  to  make  us  feel  one  with  our  fathers  of  yore ; 
and  it  must  express  clearly  and  fully  our  own  views  and  needs, 
our  convictions  and  our  hopes. 

1  Ex.  XV,  2. 


CHAPTER  XLII 


The  Nature  and  Purpose  of  Prayer 

i  Prayer  is  the  expression  of  man’s  longing  and  yearning 
for  God  in  times  of  dire  need  and  of  overflowing  joy,  an  out¬ 
flow  of  the  emotions  of  the  soul  in  its  dependence  on  God, 
the  ever-present  Helper,  the  eternal  Source  of  its  existence. 
Springing  from  the  deepest  necessity  of  human  weakness,  the 
expression  of  a  momentary  wish,  prayer  is  felt  to  be  the  proud 
prerogative  of  man  as  the  child  of  God,  and  at  last  it  becomes 
adoration  of  the  Most  High,  whose  wisdom  and  whose  paternal 
love  and  goodness  inspire  man  with  confidence  and  love. 

2.  Every  prayer  is  offered  on  the  presumption  that  it  will  be 
heard  by  God  on  high.  “O  Thou  that  hearest  prayer,  unto 
Thee  doth  all  flesh  come,”  sings  the  Psalmist.1  No  doubt  of 
the  efficacy  of  prayer  can  arise  in  the  devout  spirit.  There 
can  be  only  the  question  whether,  and  how  far,  the  Deity  can 
allow  its  decrees  to  be  influenced  by  human  wishes.  Childlike 
faith  anticipates  divine  interference  in  the  natural  order  at 
any  time,  because  it  has  not  yet  attained  the  conception  of  a 
moral  order  in  the  universe  and,  therefore,  expects  from  prayer 
also  miraculous  effects  on  life.  As  the  Deity  can  suddenly 
send  or  withhold  rain  or  drought,  barrenness  or  birth,  life  or 
death,  so  the  inference  is  that  the  man  of  God  can  do  the  same 
with  his  prayer.  This  is  the  point  of  view  of  the  Biblical  and 
Talmudic  periods,  as  well  as  of  the  entire  ancient  world.  It 
seems  almost  childish  to  our  religious  consciousness  when, 

1  Ps.  LXV,  3.  See  Wm.  James:  Varieties  of  Rel.  Experience,  463-477; 
Foster:  Function  of  Religion,  183-185;  Abelson :  Jewish  Mysticism,  p.  15  and 
elsewhere. 


271 


272 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


according  to  Talmudic  tradition,  the  high  priest  petitioned 
God  in  the  Sanctuary  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  for  a  year 
rich  in  rain  and  blessed  with  sunshine  and  with  dew,  and  at  the 
same  time  expressed  the  entreaty  that  the  prayers  of  travelers 
for  dry  or  cool  weather  should  find  no  hearing.1  That  the 
prayers  of  the  pious  may  alter  God’s  decree  is  not  doubted  for 
a  moment  by  the  rabbis ;  only  they  insist  that  God  has  taken 
into  account  beforehand  the  efficacy  of  this  prayer  in  deciding 
the  fate  of  the  pious,  in  order  that  they  may  petition  for  that 
which  He  actually  plans  to  do.  “God  longs  for  the  prayer  of 
the  pious”;  for  that  reason,  they  say,  the  Mothers  of  Israel 
were  afflicted  with  barrenness,  until  the  prayers  of  the  Pa¬ 
triarchs  had  accomplished  the  transformation  in  their  con¬ 
stitutions.2  On  the  other  hand,  the  rabbis  warn  against 
excessive  pondering  over  prayer  and  its  efficacy,  as  through  it 
that  childlike  faith  would  be  weakened,  which  is  the  basis  of 
all  prayer.3 

3.  According  to  the  rabbinic  viewpoint,  prayer  has  the 
power  to  reverse  every  heavenly  decree,  inasmuch  as  it  appeals 
from  the  punitive  justice  of  God,  which  has  decided  thus,  to 
His  attributes  of  grace  and  mercy,  which  can  at  any  time  effect 
a  change.  When  the  prophet  Isaiah  came  to  King  Hezekiah 
with  the  message:  “Set  thine  house  in  order,  for  thou  shalt 
die,  ”  he  replied,  “Finish  thy  message  and  go ;  I  have  received 
the  tradition  from  my  royal  ancestor  David  that,  even  when 
the  sword  already  touches  the  neck,  man  shall  not  desist  from 
an  appeal  to  the  divine  mercy.” 4  Nay  more,  the  rabbis 
believed  that  God  Himself  prays,  saying,  “Oh,  that  My  mercy 
shall  prevail  over  My  justice  !  ”  5  Only  after  the  divine  judg¬ 
ment  has  been  executed  prayer  becomes  vain.  In  general, 
the  entire  Talmudic  period  ascribed  miraculous  power  to 
prayer,  especially  the  prayers  of  the  pious,  like  the  popular 

1  Yoma  53  b. 

3  Ber.  55  a. 


2  Yeb.  64  a;  Ex.  R.  XXI,  6. 
4  Ber  10  a.  5  Ber.  7  a. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  PRAYER 


saint  Onias  or  Hanina  ben  Dosa.1  In  many  such  cases  the 
invocation  of  God  was  combined  with  the  use  of  the  sacred 
name,  the  tetragrammaton,  to  which  magical  powers  were 
ascribed.2 

4.  The  two  attributes  of  God,  Justice  and  Mercy,  corre¬ 
spond  to  the  double  nature  of  mankind,  as  the  sinful  man,  who 
deserves  punishment,  is  called  to  account  by  the  former,  while 
the  righteous  man  may  appeal  to  the  latter.  Accordingly,  the 
efficacy  of  prayer  could  be  so  explained  that,  before  it  can 
influence  the  decision  of  God,  it  demands  the  reformation  of 
man.  While  the  unregenerate  man  meets  an  evil  destiny, 
the  reformed  man  has  become  a  different  being,  and  hence  in¬ 
stead  of  justice  mercy  will  control  his  fate.  Albo  pleads  for 
this  view  of  prayer,  when  he  cites  the  Talmudic  incident  about 
R.  Meir.  It  is  said  that  R.  Meir  interceded  for  the  people  of 
Mimla,  who  all  seemed  to  have  been  doomed  to  die  on  attain¬ 
ing  manhood  because  they  inherited  the  curse  of  the  priestly 
family  of  Eli.3  But  he  also  recommended  to  them  that  they 
should  devote  their  lives  to  worthy  deeds,  as  it  is  said  in  the 
Proverbs:4  “The  hoary  head  is  a  crown  of  glory,  it  is  found 
in  the  way  of  righteousness.’ ’  5 

Other  thinkers  ascribe  to  prayer  the  power  to  change  the 
fate  determined  by  the  stars,  because  it  exalts  man  into  a 
higher  sphere  of  godliness,  exactly  like  the  spirit  of  prophecy. 
Of  course,  this  conception  is  connected  with  the  belief  in 
astrology,  which  swayed  even  clear  thinkers  like  Ibn  Ezra.6 

5.  According  to  our  modern  thinking  there  can  be  no  ques¬ 
tion  of  any  influence  upon  a  Deity  exalted  above  time  and 

1  Taan.  Ill,  8 ;  Ber.  V,  6 ;  Babl.  34  b ;  Yer.  9  d. 

2  Pes.  R.  XXII,  p.  114b;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  XCI,  8;  see  Schechter  :  Aspects , 
156;  42. 

3 1  Sam.  II,  31.  4  Prov.  XVI,  32. 

5  Gen.  R.  LIX,  1 ;  Yeb.  105  a,  where  R.  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  is  mentioned 
instead  of  R.  Meir;  Albo  :  Ikkarim,  IV,  18. 

6  See  Steinschn eider  :  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra ,  126  ff. 


274 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


space,  omniscient,  unchangeable  in  will  and  action,  by  the 
prayer  of  mortals.  Prayer  can  exert  power  only  over  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  man  to  God,  not  over  God  Himself.  This  indicates  the 
nature  and  purpose  of  prayer.  Man  often  feels  lonely  and 
forlorn  in  a  world  which  overpowers  him,  to  which  he  feels 
superior,  and  yet  which  he  cannot  master.  Therefore  he  longs 
for  that  unseen  Spirit  of  the  universe,  with  whom  alone  he  feels 
himself  akin,  and  in  whom  alone  he  finds  peace  and  bliss  amid 
life’s  struggle  and  unrest.  This  longing  is  both  expressed  and 
satisfied  in  prayer.  Following  the  natural  impulse  of  his 
soul,  man  must  pour  out  before  his  God  all  his  desires  and 
sighs,  all  the  emotions  of  grief  and  delight  which  sway  his 
heart,  in  order  that  he  may  find  rest,  like  a  child  at  its  mother’s 
bosom.  Therefore  the  childlike  mind  believes  that  God  can 
be  induced  to  come  down  from  His  heavenly  heights  to  offer 
help,  and  that  He  can  be  moved  and  influenced  in  human 
fashion.  The  truth  is  that  every  genuine  prayer  lifts  man  up 
toward  God,  satisfies  the  desire  for  His  hallowing  presence, 
unlocks  the  heavenly  gate  of  mercy  and  bliss,  and  bestows 
upon  man  the  beatific  and  liberating  sense  of  being  a  child  of 
God.  The  intellect  may  question  the  effect  of  prayer  upon  the 
physical,  mental,  or  social  constitution  of  man,  or  may  declare 
prayer  to  be  pious  self-deception.  The  religious  spirit  experi¬ 
ences  in  prayer  the  soaring  up  of  the  soul  toward  union  with 
God  in  consecrated  moments  of  our  mortal  pilgrimage.  This 
is  no  deception.  The  man  who  prays  receives  from  the  God¬ 
head,  toward  whom  he  fervently  lifts  himself,  the  power  to 
defy  fate,  to  conquer  sin,  misery,  and  death.  “The  Lord  is 
nigh  to  all  them  that  call  upon  Him,  to  all  that  call  upon  Him 
in  truth.”  1 

6.  To  pray,  then,  is  to  look  up  to  God  and  to  pour  out  before 
Him  one’s  wishes,  thoughts,  sorrows,  and  joys.  Certainly  the 
All-knowing  does  not  require  to  be  told  by  us  what  we  desire 

1  Ps.  CXLV,  1 8. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  PRAYER  275 


or  what  we  need.  “For  there  is  not  a  word  in  my  tongue, 
but  lo,  O  Lord,  Thou  knowest  it  altogether.”  1  But  we  mortals 
merely  aspire  toward  Him  who  bears  the  world  on  His  eternal 
arms,  to  express  in  His  presence  our  agony  and  our  jubilation, 
because  we  are  certain  of  His  paternal  sympathy.  When  we 
praise  and  extol  Him  for  the  happiness  and  the  many  pleasures 
which  He  has  granted  us,  He  becomes  the  Partaker  and  Pro¬ 
tector  of  our  fortune,  just  as  He  is  our  sympathetic  Helper 
when  we  cry  out  to  Him  under  the  burden  of  sin  or  grief,  in  the 
anxiety  of  danger  or  of  guilt.  Every  genuine  prayer  realizes 
deeply  the  truth  of  the  words,  “Cast  thy  burden  upon  the 
Lord,  and  He  will  sustain  thee.”  2 

7.  Self-expression  before  God  in  prayer  has  thus  a  double 
effect ;  it  strengthens  faith  in  God’s  love  and  kindness,  as 
well  as  in  His  all-wise  and  all-bountiful  prescience.  But  it  also 
chastens  the  desires  and  feelings  of  man,  teaching  him  to 
banish  from  his  heart  all  thoughts  of  self-seeking  and  sin,  and 
to  raise  himself  toward  the  purity  and  the  freedom  of  the 
divine  will  and  demand.  The  essence  of  every  prayer  of  sup¬ 
plication  is  that  one  should  be  in  unison  with  the  divine  will, 
to  sum  up  all  the  wishes  of  the  heart  in  the  one  phrase,  “Do 
that  which  is  good  in  Thine  own  eyes,  O  Lord.”  3  On  the 
other  hand,  only  the  prayer  which  avoids  impure  thoughts  and 
motives  can  venture  to  approach  a  holy  God,  as  the  sages  infer 
from  the  words  of  Job,  “There  is  no  violence  in  my  hands,  and 
my  prayer  is  pure.”  4 

8.  Every  prayer,  teach  the  sages,  should  begin  with  the 
praise  of  God’s  greatness,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  in  order  that 
man  should  learn  submission  and  implicit  confidence  before 
he  proffers  his  requests.5  While  looking  up  to  the  divine  Ideal 

1  Ps.  CXXXIX,  4.  2  Ps.  LV,  23. 

8  Ber.  29  b ;  Tos.  Ber.  Ill,  7 ;  comp.  Albo :  Ikkarim,  IV,  24. 

4  Job  XVI,  17;  Ex.  R.  XXII,  4;  comp.  Schechter :  Aspects,  228. 

8  Ab.  Z.  76. 


276 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  holiness  and  perfection,  he  will  strive  to  emulate  Him,  and 
seek  to  grow  ever  nearer  to  the  holy  and  the  perfect.  But 
only  when  he  prays  with  and  for  others,  that  is,  in  public 
worship,  will  he  realize  that  he  is  a  member  of  a  greater  whole, 
for  then  he  prays  only  for  that  which  advances  the  welfare  of 
all.  “He  who  prays  with  the  community,”  say  the  rabbis, 
“will  have  his  prayer  granted.”  1 

Another  saying  of  theirs  is  that  he  who  prays  should  have  his 
face  directed  to  the  sanctuary,  and  when  he  stands  on  its 
sacred  precincts,  he  should  turn  his  face  toward  the  Holy  of 
Holies.2  By  this  they  meant  that  the  attitude  of  the  suppliant 
should  ever  be  toward  the  highest,  making  the  soul  soar  up  to 
the  Highest  and  Holiest  in  reverent  awe  and  adoration,  trans¬ 
forming  the  worshiper  into  a  new  character,  pure  from  all 
dross. 

9.  Therefore  prayer  offered  with  the  community  upon  the 
sanctified  ground  of  the  house  of  God  exerts  a  specially  power¬ 
ful  influence  upon  the  individual.  In  the  silent  chamber  the 
oppressed  spirit  may  find  calm  and  composure  in  prayer ;  but 
the  pure  atmosphere  of  heavenly  freedom  and  bliss  is  attained 
with  overwhelming  might  only  by  the  united  worship  of  hun¬ 
dreds  of  devout  adorers,  which  rings  out  like  the  roaring  of 
majestic  billows :  “The  Lord  is  in  His  holy  temple ;  let  all  the 
earth  keep  silence  before  Him.”  3  The  familiar  strains  from 
days  of  yore  touch  the  deep,  long-silent  chords  of  the  heart, 
and  awaken  dormant  sentiments  and  repressed  thoughts, 
endowing  the  soul  with  new  wings,  to  lift  itself  up  toward 
God,  the  Father,  from  whom  it  had  felt  itself  alienated.  In 
the  ardor  of  communal  worship  the  traditional  words  of  the 
prayer-book  obtain  invigorating  power ;  the  heart  is  newly 
strengthened ;  the  covenant  with  heaven  sealed  anew.  To 
such  communal  prayer,  which  springs  from  the  heart,  the 
rabbis  refer  the  Biblical  words,  “to  serve  Him  with  the  whole 
1  Ber.  8  a.  2  Ber.  30  a.  3  Hab.  II,  20. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  PRAYER 


277 


heart.”  1  The  synagogal  worship  exerts  an  ennobling  influ¬ 
ence  upon  the  spirit  of  the  individual  as  well  as  that  of  the 
community.  For  after  all  the  main  object  is  that  the  soul 
which  aspires  toward  God  may  learn  to  find  God.  “Seek  ye 
the  Lord  while  He  may  be  found ;  call  ye  upon  Him  while  He 
is  near.”  2  No  man  is  so  poor  as  he  who  calls  in  agony :  “O 
God!”  and  to  whom  neither  the  heaven  above  nor  the  heart 
within  answers,  “Behold,  God  is  here.”  Nor  is  any  man  so  rich 
with  all  his  possessions  as  he  who  realizes,  like  the  Psalmist, 
that  “the  nearness  of  God  is  the  true  good,”  and  imbued  with 
this  thought  exclaims,  “Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  Thee? 
And  beside  Thee  I  desire  none  upon  earth.”  3 

1  Sifre  Deut.  41.  2  Isa.  LV,  6.  3  Ps.  LXXIII,  25,  28. 


CHAPTER  XLIII 


Death  and  the  Future  Life 

i.  The  vision  of  man  is  directed  upwards  and  forwards ;  he 
will  not  resign  himself  to  decay  in  the  dust  like  the  beast. 
As  he  bears  in  his  breast  the  consciousness  of  a  higher  divine 
world,  he  is  equally  confident  of  his  own  continuity  after 
death.  He  cannot  and  will  not  believe  that  with  the  giving 
up  of  his  last  living  breath  his  being  would  become  dust  like 
that  of  the  animal ;  or  that  his  soul,  which  has  hitherto  accom¬ 
plished  and  planned  so  much,  should  now  suddenly  cease 
altogether  to  exist.  The  longing  for  a  future  life,  however 
expressed,  has  filled  him  and  buoyed  him  up  since  the  very 
beginning  of  history.  Even  the  most  primitive  tribe  does  not 
allow  its  dead  to  lie  and  rot  like  the  carcasses  of  the  beast, 
but  lays  them  to  rest  in  the  grave  with  all  their  possessions, 
in  the  expectation  that  somewhere  and  somehow,  under,  over 
or  beyond  the  earth,  they  will  continue  their  lives,  even  in  a 
better  form  than  before. 

This  longing  for  immortality  implanted  in  the  human  soul  is 
so  represented  in  the  legend  of  Paradise  that  the  tree  whose 
fruit  bestowed  upon  the  celestial  beings  the  gift  of  eternal 
life — like  the  Greek  ambrosia,  “the  food  of  the  gods”  — 
was  originally  intended  for  mankind  also  in  the  divine  “  Garden 
of  Bliss.”  But  after  man  fell  through  sin,  all  access  to  it  was 
denied  him,  in  order  that  he  might  not  stretch  out  his  hand  for 
it  and  thereby  attain  that  immortality  which  was  vouch¬ 
safed  only  to  divine  beings.1  According  to  his  original  destiny, 
therefore,  man  should  live  forever ;  and,  just  as  legend  allows 

1  Gen.  Ill,  22. 

278 


DEATH  AND  THE  FUTURE  LIFE  279 

those  divinely  elected,  like  Enoch  and  Elijah,1  to  ascend  to 
heaven  alive,  so  at  a  later  period  prophecy  predicts  a  time  when 
God  will  annihilate  death  forever.2  Accordingly,  through  the 
power  of  his  divine  soul  man  possesses  a  claim  to  immortality, 
to  eternal  life  with  God,  the  “  Fountain  of  life.” 

2.  It  was  just  this  keen  longing  for  an  energetic  life  on 
earth,  this  mighty  yearning  to  “walk  before  God  in  the  land 
of  the  living,”  3  which  made  it  more  difficult  for  Judaism  to 
brighten  the  “valley  of  the  shadow  of  death”  and  to  elevate 
the  vague  notion  of  a  shadowy  existence  in  the  hereafter  into 
a  special  religious  teaching.  Until  long  after  the  Exile  the 
Jewish  people  shared  the  view  of  the  entire  ancient  world,  — 
both  the  Semitic  nations,  such  as  the  Babylonians  and  Phoeni¬ 
cians,  and  the  Aryans,  such  as  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  — 
that  the  dead  continue  to  exist  in  the  shadowy  realm  of  the 
nether  world  ( Sheol ) ,  the  land  of  no  return  (. Beliyaal )  ,4  of  eternal 
silence  ( Dumah ),  and  oblivion  ( Neshiyah ),5  a  dull,  ghostly 
existence  without  clear  consciousness  and  without  any  awaken¬ 
ing  to  a  better  life.  We  must,  however,  not  overlook  the  fact 
that  even  in  these  most  primitive  conceptions  a  certain  imper¬ 
ishability  is  ascribed  to  man  as  marking  his  superiority  over  the 
animal  world,  which  is  altogether  abandoned  to  decay.  Hence 
the  belief  in  the  existence  of  the  shades,  the  Ref  aim  in  Sheol.6 
But  throughout  the  Biblical  period  no  ethical  idea  yet  per¬ 
meated  this  conception,  and  no  attempt  was  made  to  trans¬ 
form  the  nether  world  into  a  place  of  divine  judgment,  of 
recompense  for  the  good  and  evil  deeds  accomplished  on  earth,7 
as  did  the  Babylonians  and  Egyptians.  Both  the  prophets  and 
the  Mosaic  code  persist  in  applying  their  promises  and  threats, 
in  fact,  their  entire  view  of  retribution,  to  this  world,  nor  do 

1  Gen.  V,  24 ;  II  Kings  II,  1.  2  Isa.  XXV,  8. 

s  Isa.  XXXVIII,  11 ;  Ps.  CXVI,  9. 

4  Ps.  XVIII,  5,  and  J.  E.,  art.  Belial.  6  Ps.  CXV,  17 ;  LXXXVIII,  13. 

e  Isa.  XXVI,  14,  19;  Ps.  LXXXVIII,  11 ;  Prov.  IX,  18;  Job  XXVI,  5. 

7  Ps.  XLIX,  1 5. 


280 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


they  indicate  by  a  single  word  the  belief  in  a  judgment  or  a 
weighing  of  actions  in  the  world  to  come. 

3.  Whether  the  Mosaic-prophetic  writings  be  regarded  from 
the  standpoint  of  traditional  faith  or  of  historical  criticism, 
the  limitation  of  their  teaching  and  exhortation  to  the  present 
life  can  be  considered  narrowness  only  by  biased  expounders 
of  the  “Old  Testament.”  The  Xsraelitish  lawgiver  could  not 
have  been  altogether  ignorant  of  the  Egyptian  or  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  conceptions  of  the  future  world.  Obviously  Israel’s 
prophets  and  lawgivers  deliberately  avoided  giving  any 
definite  expression  to  the  common  belief  in  a  future  life  after 
death,  especially  as  the  Canaanitish  magicians  and  necro¬ 
mancers  used  this  popular  belief  to  carry  on  their  superstitious 
practices,  so  dangerous  to  all  moral  progress.1  The  great 
task  which  prophetic  Judaism  set  itself  was  to  place  the  entire 
life  of  men  and  nations  in  the  service  of  the  God  of  justice  and 
holiness ;  there  was  thus  no  motive  to  extend  the  dominion 
of  JHVH,  the  God  of  life,  to  the  underworld,  the  playground 
of  the  forces  of  fear  and  superstition.  As  late  as  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Job  and  of  the  earlier  Psalms,  Sheol  was  known 
as  the  despot  of  the  nether  world  with  its  demoniacal  forms, 
as  the  “king  of  terrors”  who  extends  his  scepter  over  the 
dead.2  Only  gradually  does  the  thought  find  expression  in 
the  Psalms  that  the  Omnipotent  Ruler  of  heaven  could  also 
rescue  the  soul  out  of  the  power  of  Sheol,3  and  that  His  omni¬ 
presence  included  likewise  the  nether  world.4  In  this  trustful 
spirit  the  Hasidic  Psalmist  expressed  the  hope:  “Thou  wilt 
not  abandon  my  soul  to  Sheol,  neither  wilt  Thou  suffer  Thy 
godly  one  to  see  the  pit.  Thou  makest  me  to  know  the  path 
of  life ;  in  Thy  presence  is  fulness  of  joy ;  in  Thy  right  hand 
bliss  forevermore.”  5 

1  See  Isa.  VIII,  19;  XXVIII,  15,  18;  I  Sam.  XXIX,  7-14. 

2  Job  XVIII,  14;  Ps.  XLIX,  15. 

3  Ps.  XLIX,  16;  Job  XIV,  13.  4  Ps.  CXXXIX,  8. 

6  Ps.  XVI,  10-1 1 ;  Hosea  XIII  is  a  late  emendation  of  the  text. 


DEATH  AND  THE  FUTURE  LIFE 


281 


4.  Biblical  Judaism  evinced  such  a  powerful  impetus  toward 
a  complete  and  blissful  life  with  God,  that  the  center  and  pur¬ 
pose  of  existence  could  not  be  transferred  to  the  hereafter, 
as  in  other  systems  of  belief,  but  was  found  in  the  desire  to 
work  out  the  life  here  on  earth  to  its  fullest  possible  develop¬ 
ment.  Virtue  and  wisdom,  righteousness  and  piety,  signify 
and  secure  true  life ;  vice  and  folly,  iniquity  and  sin,  lead  to 
death  and  annihilation.  This  is  the  ever  recurring  burden  of 
the  popular  as  well  as  of  the  prophetic  and  priestly  wisdom  of 
Israel.1  In  the  song  of  thanks  of  King  Hezekiah  after  his 
recovery,  the  Jewish  soul  expresses  itself,  when  he  says : 2  “I 
said,  I  shall  not  see  the  Lord,  even  the  Lord  in  the  land  of  the 
living.  ...  But  Thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from  the  pit 
of  corruption.  For  the  nether  world  cannot  praise  Thee ; 
death  cannot  celebrate  Thee.  The  living,  the  living,  he  shall 
praise  Thee,  as  I  do  this  day.  The  father  to  the  children  shall 
make  known  Thy  truth.”  Therefore  the  author  of  the  seventy- 
third  Psalm,  ennobled  by  trials,  finds  sufficient  comfort  and 
happiness  in  the  presence  of  God  that  he  can  spurn  all  earthly 
treasures.3  Job,  too,  in  his  affliction  longed  for  death  as  release 
from  all  earthly  pain  and  sorrow,  but  not  to  bring  him  a  state  of 
rest  and  peace  like  the  Nirvana  of  the  Indian  beggar-monk,  or 
an  outlook  into  a  better  world  to  come.  Such  an  awakening  to 
a  new  life  seems  to  him  unthinkable,  —  although  many  com¬ 
mentators  have  often  endeavored  to  read  such  a  hope  into 
certain  of  his  expressions.4  Instead,  his  belief  in  God  as  the 
Ruler  of  the  infinite  world,  with  His  lofty  moral  purpose  far 
outreaching  all  human  wisdom,  lent  him  courage  and  power 
for  further  effort  and  persistent  striving  on  earth.  Since  to  this 

1  Deut.  XXX,  19 ;  Jer.  XXI,  8 ;  Ezek.  XX,  1 1 ;  Lev.  XVIII,  5 ;  Ps.  XXXIV, 
3  ;  Prov.  Ill,  22 ;  V,  5  f. 

2  Isa.  XXXVIII,  10-20.  3  Ps.  LXXIII,  25-28. 

4  Job  XIX,  25  f.,  challenges  God  to  be  his  vindicator  on  earth  or  on  his  tomb, 
testifying  to  his  righteousness.  Resurrection  is  denied  directly:  VII,  8-21; 
XIV,  12-22.  The  whole  argument  of  the  book  excludes  the  thought. 


282 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


suffering  hero,  impelled  to  deeds  by  his  own  energy,  life  is  a 
continuous  battle,  a  hereafter  as  a  “world  of  reward  and  pun¬ 
ishment’’  can  hardly  solve  the  great  enigma  of  human  exist¬ 
ence  in  a  satisfactory  manner  for  him.  The  wise  ones  — 
says  a  Talmudic  maxim  —  find  rest  neither  in  this  world  nor 
in  the  world  to  come,  but  “they  shall  ascend  from  strength  to 
strength,  until  they  appear  before  God  on  Zion.”  1 

5.  In  the  course  of  time,  however,  the  question  of  existence 
after  death  demanded  more  and  more  a  satisfactory  answer. 
Under  the  severe  political  and  social  oppression  that  came 
upon  the  Jewish  people,  the  pious  ones  failed  to  see  a  just 
equation  of  man’s  doings  and  his  destiny  in  this  life.  The 
bitter  disappointment  which  they  experienced  made  them 
look  to  the  God  of  justice  for  a  future,  when  virtue  would 
receive  its  due  reward  and  vice  its  befitting  punishment.  The 
community  of  the  pious  especially  awaited  in  vain  the  realiza¬ 
tion  of  the  great  messianic  hope  with  which  the  prophetic 
words  of  comfort  had  filled  their  hearts.  They  had  willingly 
offered  up  their  lives  for  the  truth  of  Judaism,  and  the  God  of 
faithfulness  could  not  deceive  them.  Surely  the  shadowy 
realm  of  the  nether  world  could  not  be  the  end  of  all.  So  the 
voice  of  promise  came  to  them  from  the  book  of  Isaiah, 
where  these  encouraging  and  comforting  words  were  inserted 
by  a  later  hand  :  “Thy  dead  shall  live ;  thy  (My)  dead  bodies 
shall  arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust,  for 
Thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  forth 
the  shades.”  2  Even  before  this  time  the  God  of  Israel  had 
been  praised  as  “He  who  killeth  and  maketh  alive,  who 
bringeth  down  to  Sheol,  and  bringeth  up.”  3  So  was  also  the 
miraculous  power  of  restoring  the  dead  to  life  ascribed  to  the 

1  Ber.  64  a,  with  ref.  to  Ps.  LXXXIV,  4. 

2  Isa.  XXVI,  19.  Read,  “ thy  dead  instead  of  My  dead.”  The  transla¬ 
tion  given  here  differs  from  the  new  translation. 

3 1  Sam.  II,  6. 


DEATH  AND  THE  FUTURE  LIFE 


283 


prophets.1  Furthermore,  the  vision  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
concerning  the  dry  bones  which  arose  to  new  life,  in  which  he 
beheld  the  divine  revelation  of  the  approaching  event  of  the 
restoration  of  the  Jewish  nation,2  shows  how  familiar  the  idea 
of  resurrection  must  have  been  to  the  people.  Hence  the 
minds  of  the  Jewish  people  were  sufficiently  prepared  to  adopt 
the  Persian  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

6.  This,  however,  led  to  a  tremendous  process  of  trans¬ 
formation  in  Judaism  with  a  wide  chasm  between  Mosaism 
and  Rabbinism,  or,  more  accurately,  between  the  Sadducees, 
who  adhered  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  the  Pharisees,  who 
embodied  the  progressive  spirit  of  the  people.  On  the  one 
hand,  Jesus  ben  Sira,  who  at  the  close  of  his  book  speaks  with 
great  admiration  of  the  high-priest  Simon  the  Just  as  his  con¬ 
temporary,  knew  as  yet  nothing  of  a  future  life,  and  like 
Koheleth  saw  the  end  of  all  human  existence  in  the  dismal 
realm  of  the  nether  world.  Yet  at  the  same  time,  the  Hasi- 
dim  or  pious  ones  and  their  successors,  the  Pharisees,  were 
developing  after  the  Persian  pattern  the  thought  of  a  divine 
judgment  day  after  death,  when  the  just  were  to  awaken  to 
eternal  life,  and  the  evil-doers  to  shame  and  everlasting  con¬ 
tempt.3  This  advanced  moral  view,  frequently  overlooked, 
transformed  the  ancient  Semitic  Sheol  from  the  realm  of 
shades  to  a  place  of  punishment  for  sinners,  and  thus  invested 
it  with  an  ethical  purpose.4  After  this  the  various  Biblical 
names  for  the  nether  world  became  the  various  divisions  of 

1 II  Kings  IV,  20-37.  2  Ezek.  XXXVII,  1-14. 

3  Dan.  XII,  2,  and  comp.  II  Macc.  VII,  9-36 ;  XII,  43,  and  the  Apocalyptic 
books  such  as  Enoch,  Test.  Twelve  Patriarchs,  Jubilees,  Psalms  of  Solomon, 
IV  Ezra  and  Baruch  Apocalypse,  whereas  I  Macc.,  Judith  and  Tobit,  belonging 
to  the  Sadducean  circles,  never  allude  to  the  future  life. 

4  Passages  like  Ps.  IX,  18;  XI,  6;  XLIX,  15,  comp,  with  Isa.  XXXIII, 
14 ;  LXV,  24 ;  Mai.  Ill,  19,  lent  themselves  especially  to  this  conception  of 
Sheol  as  a  fiery  place  of  punishment  identified  afterwards  with  Gehinnom. 
Jer.  VII,  31  f. ;  XIX,  6.  See  J.  E.,  art.  Gehenna,  and  R.  H.  Charles,  Hebrew , 
Jewish  and  Christian  Eschatology ,  2d,  1913,  p.  7 5  f.,  132,  160  f.,  292  f. 


284 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


hell.1  Indeed,  the  Psalmists  and  the  Proverbs  had  announced 
to  the  wicked  their  destruction  in  Sheol,  and  on  the  other 
hand  held  out  for  the  godly  the  hope  of  deliverance  from  Sheol 
and  a  beatific  sight  of  God  in  the  land  of  the  living.  Thus  the 
transition  was  prepared  for  the  new  world-conception.  All  the 
promises  and  threats  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  when  they 
did  not  receive  fulfillment  in  this  world,  appeared  now  to 
point  forward  to  the  world  to  come.  Moreover,  the  Pharisees 
in  their  disputes  with  the  Sadducees  made  use  of  every  refer¬ 
ence,  however  slight,  to  the  future  life,  —  even  of  such  pas¬ 
sages  as  those  which  speak  of  the  Patriarchs  as  receiving  the 
promise  of  possessing  the  Holy  Land,  as  if  they  were  still  alive, 
—  as  proofs  of  the  continued  life  of  the  dead,  or  of  their  resur¬ 
rection.2  Thus  it  came  about  that  the  leading  authorities  of 
rabbinic  Judaism  were  in  the  position  to  declare  in  the  Mishnah  : 
“He  who  says  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is 
not  founded  on  the  Torah  (and  therefore  does  not  accept  it) 
shall  have  no  share  in  the  world  to  come.”  3 

7.  The  founders  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Synagogue,  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  Sadducees,  formulated  therefore  the  belief  in  resur¬ 
rection  in  the  second  of  the  “Eighteen  (or  Seven)  Benedic¬ 
tions”  of  the  daily  prayer  in  the  following  words:  “Thou, 
O  Lord,  art  mighty  forever.  Thou  revives t  the  dead.  Thou 
art  mighty  to  save.  Thou  sustainest  the  living  with  loving¬ 
kindness,  revivest  the  dead  with  great  mercy,  supportest  the 
falling,  healest  the  sick,  loosest  the  bound,  and  keepest  Thy 
faith  to  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust.  (This  refers  to  the 
Patriarchs,  to  whom  God  has  promised  the  land  of  the  future.) 
Who  is  like  unto  Thee,  0  Lord  of  mighty  acts,  and  who 
resembleth  Thee,  0  King,  who  killest  and  bringest  to  life,  and 
causest  salvation  to  spring  forth?  Yea,  faithful  art  Thou  to 

1  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  XI,  5-6;  Erub.  19  a. 

2  Sanh.  90  b;  comp.  Matt.  XXII,  32. 

3  Sanh.  X,  1 ;  see  J.  E.,  art.  Resurrection,  and  Neumark,  art.  Ikkarim  in  1.  c. 


DEATH  AND  THE  FUTURE  LIFE 


285 


revive  the  dead.  Blessed  art  Thou,  O  Lord,  who  revivest 
the  dead.”  In  this  prayer  dating  from  the  age  of  the  Macca¬ 
bees1  the  Jewish  consciousness  of  two  thousand  years  found 
a  twofold  hope,  —  the  national  and  the  universally  human. 
The  national  hope,  which  combined  the  belief  in  the  restoration 
of  the  kingdom  of  David  and  of  the  sacrificial  cult  with  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  in  the  Holy  Land,  can  be  understood 
only  in  connection  with  a  historic  view  of  Israel’s  place  in  the 
world,  and  is  treated  in  the  third  part  of  this  book.  The 
purely  human  hope  for  the  continuity  or  the  renewal  of  life 
rests  on  two  fundamental  problems  which  must  be  examined 
more  closely  in  the  next  two  chapters.  The  one  belongs  to  the 
province  of  psychology  and  considers  the  question :  What  is 
the  eternal  divine  element  in  man?  The  other  goes  more 
deeply  into  the  religious  and  moral  nature  of  man  and  con¬ 
siders  the  question :  Where  and  how  does  divine  retribution 
—  reward  or  punishment  —  take  place  in  human  life?  To 
both  of  these  questions  our  modern  view,  with  its  special  aim 
toward  a  unified  grasp  of  the  totality  of  life,  requires  a  special 
answer.  This  can  be  neither  that  of  rabbinic  Judaism,  which 
rests  upon  Persian  dualism,  nor  that  of  medieval  philosophy, 
which  was  under  the  Platonic-Aristotelian  influence. 

1  See  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  44  f.,  and  Abrahams’  Notes,  LIX. 


CHAPTER  XLIV 


The  Immortal  Soul  of  Man 

i.  The  idea  of  immortality  has  been  found  in  Scripture  in  a 
rather  obscure  and  probably  corrupt  passage,1  “In  the  way 
of  righteousness  is  life,  and  in  the  pathway  thereof  there  is  no 
death.”  In  the  same  spirit  Aquila,  the  Bible  translator, 
who  belonged  to  the  school  of  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Joshua,  renders 
the  equally  obscure  passage  from  the  Psalms,2  “He  will  lead 
us  to  immortality,”  reading  al  maveth ,  the  A1  with  Alef,  for 
al  muth ,  the  Al  with  Ayin.  There  is  more  solid  foundation  for 
the  view  that  the  verse,  “  God  created  man  in  Plis  own  image” 
implies  that  there  is  an  imperishable  divine  essence  in  man. 
In  fact,  that  which  distinguishes  man  from  the  animal  as  well 
as  from  the  rest  of  creation,  both  the  starrv  worlds  above  and 
the  manifold  forms  of  life  on  earth  about  him,  is  his  self- 
conscious  personality,  his  ego,  through  which  he  feels  himself 
akin  with  God,  the  great  world-ruling  I  Am.  This  self- 
conscious  part  of  man,  which  lends  to  his  every  manifestation 
its  value  and  purpose,  can  no  more  disappear  into  nothing¬ 
ness  than  can  God,  who  called  into  existence  this  world  with  all 
its  phenomena,  who  set  it  in  motion  and  directs  it.  What¬ 
ever  thought  the  crudest  of  men  may  have  of  his  ego,  his  self,3 
or  however  the  most  learned  scholar  may  explain  the  marvel¬ 
ous  action  and  interaction  of  physical  and  psychical  or  spiritual 

1  Prov.  XII,  28,  comp.  LXX,  and  see  Kittel:  Bibl.  Hebr.,  note. 

2  Ps.  XL VIII,  15  ;  see  Kittel,  note ;  Midr.  Teh.  to  Psalms  and  note  by  Buber ; 
Yer.  Meg.  II,  73  b ;  M.  K.  83  b ;  Lev.  R.  XI,  9. 

3  See  Tylor  :  Primitive  Culture,  Index,  s.  v.  Soul. 

286 


THE  IMMORTAL  SOUL  OF  MAN 


287 


forces  which  culminates  in  his  own  self-conscious  personality, 
it  appears  certain  that  this  ego  cannot  cease  to  be  with  the 
cessation  of  the  bodily  functions.  There  is  in  us  something 
divine,  immortal,  and  the  only  question  is  wherein  it  may  be 
found. 

2.  The  creation  of  man  which  is  described  in  the  Bible  in 
the  words,  “  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became 
a  living  soul”  1  corresponds  to  the  child-like  conceptions  of  a 
primitive  people.  On  the  other  hand,  Scripture  speaks  of 
death  in  parallel  terms,  “The  dust  returneth  to  the  earth  as  it 
was,  and  the  spirit  (Ruah,  the  life-giving  breath)  returneth 
unto  God  who  gave  it.”  2 

The  conception  that  the  soul  enters  into  man  as  the  breath 
of  life  and  leaves  him  at  his  death,  flying  toward  heaven  like  a 
bird,3  is  quite  as  ancient  and  as  universal  as  the  other,  that  the 
soul  descends  into  the  nether  world  as  a  shadowy  image  of  the 
body,  there  to  continue  a  dull  existence.  The  two  are  related 
to  one  another,  and  in  the  Bible,  as  well  as  in  the  literature  of 
other  peoples,  they  have  given  rise  to  diverse  definitions  of  the 
soul.  This  was  the  point  of  departure  for  the  development  of 
the  conception  of  immortality  in  one  or  the  other  direction, 
according  to  whether  the  body  was  considered  a  part  of  the 
personality  which  somehow  survives  after  death,  or  only  the 
spiritual  substance  of  the  soul  was  thought  to  live  on  in  celesr 
tial  regions  as  something  divine.  The  former  led  to  the  theory 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  its  reunion  with  the  soul ; 
the  latter  to  the  belief  in  a  future  life  for  the  soul,  after  it  had 
been  separated  or  released  from  the  body. 

3.  When  once  the  soul  was  felt  to  be  a  “lamp  of  the  Lord,” 
filling  the  body  with  light  when  man  is  awake,4  it  was  easy  to 
imagine  that  the  soul  had  escaped  and  temporarily  returned 

1  Gen.  II,  7.  2  Led.  XII,  7. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Birds  as  Souls.  4  Prov.  XX,  27. 


288 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


to  God  in  sleep.  This  induced  the  teachers  of  the  Synagogue  to 
prescribe  a  morning  prayer  of  thanks  which  reads,  “  Blessed 
art  Thou,  O  God,  who  restorest  the  souls  unto  dead  bodies.”  1 
The  conception  underlying  this  prayer  throws  light  upon  the 
entire  belief  in  resurrection.  Death  to  the  pious  is  only  a 
prolonged  sleep.  On  that  account  the  prophet  in  the  passage 
from  Isaiah  already  referred  to,  as  well  as  the  Hasidic  author 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel,2  could  express  the  hope  that  “  those  who 
sleep  in  the  dust  shall  awake.”  As  at  every  awakening  from 
sleep  in  the  morning,  so  at  the  great  awakening  in  the  future, 
the  souls  which  have  departed  in  death  shall  return  again  to 
their  bodies.  These  bodies  could  then  hardly  be  conceived  of 
as  subject  to  decomposition,  and  the  picture  in  Ezekiel’s 
vision  of  resurrection 3  had  to  be  accepted  as  fact.  Still  R. 
Simeon  b.  Yohai  in  the  especially  instructive  thirty-fourth 
chapter  of  Pirke  de  R.  Eliezer  assumes  the  complete  disintegra¬ 
tion  of  the  body,  in  order  to  render  the  miracle  of  resurrection 
so  much  the  greater.  Later  still  arose  the  legend  of  an  in¬ 
destructible  bone  of  the  spinal  column,  called  Luz,  which  was 
to  form  the  nucleus  for  the  revival  of  the  whole  body.4  The 
name  Luz,  which  denotes  an  almond  tree  and  is  the  name 
given  in  the  Bible  to  a  city  also,5  seemed  to  point  to  a  connection 
with  two  legends,  a  fabulous  city  into  which  death  could  not 
enter,6  and  the  tree  of  resurrection  in  the  Osiris  cycle.7 

4.  Still,  no  clear,  consistent  view  of  the  soul  prevailed  as 
yet  in  the  rabbinic  age.  The  popular  belief,  influenced  by 
Persian  notions,  was  that  the  soul  lingers  near  the  body  for  a 
certain  time  after  it  has  relinquished  it,  either  from  three  to 
seven  days  or  for  an  entire  year.8  Furthermore  it  was  said 
that  after  death  the  souls  hovered  between  heaven  and  earth 

1  Ber.  60  b ;  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  5.  2  Isa.  XXVI,  19 ;  Dan.  XII,  2. 

3  Ezek.  XXXVII,  1  f.  4  Eccl.  R.  XII,  5  :  J.  E.,  art.  Luz. 

6  Judg.  I,  26.  6  Sota  46  b. 

7  Brugsch:  Religion  u.  Mythologie  d.  alt.  Aegypten,  p.  618,  634. 

s  P.  d.  R.  El.  XXXIV. 


THE  IMMORTAL  SOUL  OF  MAN 


289 


in  the  form  of  ghosts,  able  to  overhear  the  secrets  of  the  future 
decreed  above  and  to  betray  them  to  human  beings  below. 
In  fact,  the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud,  especially  the  Hasidim, 
never  hesitated  to  accept  these  ghost  stories.1  Some  sages  of 
the  Talmudic  period  taught  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous 
ascend  to  heaven,  there  to  dwell  under  the  throne  of  the  divine 
majesty,  awaiting  the  time  of  the  renewal  of  the  world,  while 
the  souls  of  the  godless  hovered  over  the  horizon  of  the  earth 
as  restless  demoniacal  spirits,  finally  to  succumb  to  the  fate  of 
annihilation,  after  they  had  been  cast  down  into  the  fiery  pit 
of  Gehenna  or  Sheol.2  Of  course,  this  view,  which  prevails  in 
both  the  Talmud  and  the  New  Testament,  according  to  which 
the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  to  be  consumed  in  the  fire  of 
Gehenna,  is  inconsistent  with  the  conception  of  the  purely 
spiritual  nature  of  the  soul. 

Nevertheless  at  this  same  epoch  we  find  the  higher  idea  ex¬ 
pressed  that  the  soul  is  an  invisible,  god-like  essence,  pervading 
the  body  as  a  spiritual  force  and  differing  from  it  in  nature  in 
much  the  same  way  as  God  is  differentiated  from  the  world.3 
“Thou  wishes t  to  know  where  God  dwells,  who  is  as  high  as 
are  the  heavens  above  the  earth ;  tell  me  then  where  dwells 
thy  soul,  which  is  so  near/’  replied  R.  Gamaliel  to  a  heathen.4 
The  prevailing  view  of  the  schools  is  that  God  implants  the 
soul  in  the  embryo  while  in  the  mother’s  womb,  together  with 
all  the  spiritual  potentialities  which  make  it  human.  In  fact, 
R.  Simlai,  the  third-century  Haggadist,  advances  the  Platonic 
conception  of  the  preexistence  of  the  soul,  as  a  being  of  the 
highest  intelligence,  which  sees  before  birth  all  things  through¬ 
out  the  world,  but  forgets  all  at  birth,  so  that  all  subsequent 
learning  is  only  a  recollection.5  In  Hellenistic  Judaism  espe¬ 
cially  the  doctrine  seems  to  have  been  general  of  the  preexist¬ 
ence  of  the  soul,  or  of  the  creation  of  all  human  souls  simulta- 

1  Ber.  18  b.  2  Shab.  152  b.  3  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  CIII,  r. 

4  Sanh.  39  b.  6  Nid.  30  b. 

u 


290 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


neously  with  the  creation  of  the  world.1  Of  course,  the  soul 
which  emanates  from  a  higher  world  must  be  eternal. 

5.  The  first  clear  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  soul  came  with 
the  philosophically  trained  thinkers,  who  were  dependent  either 
on  Plato,  main  founder  of  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  or  on  Aristotle,  who  ascribes  immortality  only  to  the 
creative  spirit  of  God,  the  supreme  Intelligence  as  a  cosmic 
power.  The  nearest  approach  to  Plato  was  Philo,2  who  saw  in 
the  three  Biblical  names  for  the  soul,  nefesh,  ruah ,  and  ne- 
shama,  the  three  souls  of  the  Platonic  system,  —  the  sensuous 
soul,  which  has  its  seat  in  the  abdomen ;  the  courageous  or 
emotional  soul,  situated  in  the  breast ;  and  the  intellectual 
soul,  which  dwells  in  the  brain  and  contains  the  imperishable 
divine  nature.  This  last  is  kept  in  its  physical  environment 
as  in  a  prison  or  a  grave,  and  ever  yearns  for  liberation  and 
reunion  with  God.  The  soul  of  the  righteous  enters  the  world 
of  angels  after  death  ;  that  of  the  wicked  the  world  of  demons. 

Saadia,  who  was  under  the  influence  of  Aristotle  interpreted 
from  the  neo-Platonic  viewpoint,  did  not  share  the  Platonic 
dualism  of  matter  and  spirit,  nor  did  he  divide  the  soul  into 
three  parts,  seated  in  various  parts  of  the  human  body.  He 
finds  the  soul  to  be  a  spiritual  substance  created  simultaneously 
with  the  body,  and  uniting  the  three  forces  of  the  soul  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  Scripture  into  one  inseparable  whole,  the  seat  of 
which  is  in  the  heart,  —  wherefore  soul  and  heart  are  often 
synonymous  in  the  Bible.  This  indivisible  substance  pos¬ 
sesses  a  luminous  nature  like  that  of  the  spheres,  but  is  simpler, 
finer,  and  purer  than  they,  and  endowed  with  the  power  of 
thought.  It  was  created  by  God  out  of  the  primal  ether  from 
which  He  made  the  angels,  simultaneously  with  the  body  and 

1  B.  Wisd.  VIII,  19;  Slav.  Enoch  XXII,  4,  comp.  Bousset,  1.  c.,  313  f. 

2  Philo:  Leg.  All.  Ill,  38;  Migrat.  Abrah.  12;  De  Concupiscentia,  2;  De 
Fortitudine,  3;  Drummond:  Philo,  I,  318  f. ;  Bentwich:  Philo,  178,  181;  Win- 
delband-Tufts  on  Plato,  123  f.,  on  Philo,  231,  comp.  Bousset,  1.  c.,  508 ;  Rhode : 
Psyche,  557  f. 


THE  IMMORTAL  SOUL  OF  MAN 


291 


within  it.  By  this  union  it  was  qualified  to  display  that  moral 
activity  prescribed  for  it  in  the  divine  teaching,  the  neglect  of 
which  would  defile  and  tarnish  it.  According  to  Saadia  some 
kind  of  material  substance  adheres  to  the  soul  as  well  as  to  the 
angels,  and  on  that  account  he  does  not  hesitate  to  accept  the 
Talmudic  expressions  about  the  abode  of  the  soul  after  death, 
or  the  last  judgment  which  is  to  take  place  as  soon  as  the  ap¬ 
pointed  number  of  souls  shall  have  made  their  entrance  into 
their  earthly  bodies,  when  the  souls  of  the  righteous  will  have 
their  angelic  nature  recognized,  and  those  of  the  wicked  will 
have  their  lower  character  revealed.  However,  Saadia  com¬ 
bats  with  so  much  greater  fervor  the  Hindu  teaching  of 
metempsychosis,  which  had  been  adopted  by  Plato  and  Py¬ 
thagoras.1 

Bahya  connects  his  theory  with  the  three  souls  of  Plato, 
and  likewise  ascribes  to  the  soul  an  ethereal  essence.2  He  holds 
that  its  destiny  is  to  raise  itself  to  the  order  of  the  angels 
through  self-purification,  and  finally  to  return  to  God  as  the 
divine  Source  of  light.  To  this  end  the  intellectual  soul,  which 
has  its  being  from  the  primal  light,  must  overcome  the  lower 
sensuous  soul  which  leads  to  sin. 

6.  The  conception  that  the  soul  is  a  substance  derived  from 
the  luminous  primal  matter,  like  the  heavenly  spheres  and  the 
angels,  was  now  persistently  retained  by  the  Jewish  thinkers, 
who  explained  thereby  its  immortality.  In  adopting  the 
Aristotelian  theory  that  the  soul  is  the  form-principle  of  the 
body,  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  its  preexistence  was  gradually 
relinquished,  and  its  existence  ascribed  to  a  creative  act  of 
God  at  the  birth  of  the  child  or  at  its  conception.  But  Jehuda 
ha-Levi,  the  most  pious  of  all  the  philosophers,  emphasized 
vigorously  the  indivisibility  of  the  soul,  its  incorporeality  and 

1  Emunoth,  Ch.  VI ;  SchmiedI,  1.  c.,  13s  f-  5  Neumark,  1.  c.,  I,  536  f. ;  Husik, 
1.  c.,  376. 

2  Neumark,  1.  c.,  495 ;  Husik,  1.  c.,  108  f. ;  J.  E.,  art.  Bahya. 


292 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


its  reality  apart  from  the  condition  of  the  body,  and  —  in 
opposition  to  the  Aristotelian  free-thinkers,  who  expected  the 
human  soul  to  be  absorbed  into  the  divine  soul,  the  active 
intellect,  —  he  declared  the  immortality  of  the  individual  a 
fundamental  article  of  faith.1 

Now  some  of  the  Jewish  thinkers,  following  Jehuda  ha  Levi, 
Ibn  Daud,  and  others,  though  Aristotelians,  shrank  from  the 
logical  conclusion  of  denying  all  individuality  to  the  soul,  and 
attributed  to  it  rather  a  process  of  purification,  which  ends  with 
the  elevation  of  the  soul-essence  to  angelic  rank  and  thus 
guarantees  its  immortality.  Not  so  Maimonides,  who  ac¬ 
cepted  with  inexorable  earnestness  the  Aristotelian  idea  of 
form  as  the  perfection  of  matter.  The  essence  of  the  human 
soul  is,  for  him,  that  force  or  potentiality  which  qualifies  it  for 
the  highest  development  of  the  intellect,  and  is  alone  capable 
of  grasping  the  divine.  Yet  it  can  acquire  a  part  in  the  crea¬ 
tive  World-spirit  only  in  the  same  degree  as  it  unfolds  this 
potentiality  to  share  the  divine  intellect,  whose  seat  is  the 
highest  sphere  of  the  universe.  By  dint  of  this  acquired 
intelligence  it  can  live  on  as  an  independent  intellect,  in  the 
image  of  God,  and  thus  attain  beatitude  in  the  contemplation 
of  Divinity.2 

7 .  Naturally  the  view  of  Maimonides,  that  a  certain  measure 
of  immortality  is  granted  only  to  the  wise,  —  though  they  must 
be  morally  perfect  as  well,  —  aroused  great  opposition.  Has¬ 
dai  Crescas  proves  its  untenableness  by  asking,  “Why  shall 
the  wise  alone  share  in  immortality?  Furthermore,  how  can 
something  that  came  into  existence  in  the  course  of  human 
life  suddenly  acquire  eternal  duration?  Or  how  can  there  be 
any  bliss  in  the  knowledge  of  God  where  there  is  no  personality, 

1  Cuzariy  V,  12.  See  Cassel,  notes;  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  141 ;  Neumark,  1.  c., 
561 ;  Husik,  1.  c.,  179  f. 

2  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  149;  Neumark,  1.  c.,  536  f.,  551,  558,  573,  586;  Husik, 
1.  c.,  281  f.  Comp.  Scheyer :  d.  Psychol.  Syst.  d.  Maim.;  Simon,  Aspects  of 
the  Hebrew  Genius ,  75-78,  86. 


THE  IMMORTAL  SOUL  OF  MAN 


293 


no  self-conscious  ego  to  enjoy  it?”  Therefore  Crescas 
ascribed  to  the  soul  an  indestructible  spiritual  essence 
whose  perfection  is  attained,  not  by  mere  intellect  or  knowl¬ 
edge,  but  by  love  of  God  manifested  in  a  religious  and 
moral  life,  and  which  is  thereby  made  to  share  in  eternal 
bliss.1 

8.  All  these  various  thinkers  find  the  future  life  either  ex¬ 
pressed  or  suggested  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  truth  based  upon 
reason.  This  is  especially  the  conception  of  Abraham  ibn 
Daud,  who,  contrary  to  his  Aristotelian  successor  Maimonides, 
sees  in  self-consciousness,  by  which  the  soul  differentiates  itself 
from  the  body  as  a  personality,  the  proof  that  it  cannot  be 
subject  to  dissolution  with  the  body.2 

Besides  the  philosophic  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  however,  the  traditional  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  demanded  some  consideration  on  the  part  of  these 
philosophers.  Saadia  defends  the  latter  with  all  his  might, 
endeavoring  to  reconcile  the  two  as  best  he  can.3  All  the  rest 
leave  us  in  doubt  whether  resurrection  is  to  be  understood 
literally  or  symbolically.  Maimonides  especially  involves 
himself  in  difficulties,  inasmuch  as  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Mishna  he  considers  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  an  unalter¬ 
able  article  of  faith,  whereas  in  his  Code 4  and  in  the  Moreh 
he  speaks  only  of  immortality ;  and  again  before  the  end  of  his 
life  he  wrote,  obviously  in  self-defense,  a  work  which  seems 
to  favor  bodily  resurrection,  yet  without  clarifying  his  con¬ 
ceptions  at  any  time.5  The  belief  in  resurrection  had  taken 
too  deep  a  root  in  the  Jewish  consciousness  and  had  been  too 
firmly  established  through  the  liturgy  of  the  Synagogue  for  any 
philosopher  to  touch  it  without  injuring  the  very  foundations 
of  faith. 

1  Or  Adonai,  II,  6;  Joel :  “Crescas”;  Husik,  1.  c.,  400. 

2  Emunah  Ramah,  39 ;  Husik,  1.  c.,  259  b. 

3  Emunoth ,  VII.  4  H.  Teshubah ,  VIII,  2. 

5  Maamar  Tehiyyath  ha  Metim,  see  Schmiedl,  1.  c.,  172. 


294 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Moreover,  beside  external  caution  a  certain  inner  need 
seems  to  have  impelled  toward  the  acceptance  of  resurrection. 
As  soon  as  one  thinks  of  the  soul  as  existing  or  continuing  to 
live  in  an  incorporeal  state,  one  is  involuntarily  led  toward  the 
belief  in  the  soul’s  preexistence  or  even  in  the  possibility  of 
metempsychosis.  Thus  it  seemed  more  reasonable  to  believe 
in  a  new  formation  of  the  human  body  together  with  a  new 
creation  of  the  world.  Therewith  came  the  disposition  to 
assign  to  the  soul  in  the  future  world  a  body  of  finer  substance, 
like  that  assumed  by  the  mystic  Nahmanides,1  in  order  to 
assure  to  the  new  humanity  a  wondrous  duration  of  life  like 
that  of  Elijah. 

9.  While  the  popular  philosopher  Albo  rightly  declares  that 
the  nature  of  the  soul  is  as  far  beyond  all  human  understanding 
as  is  the  nature  of  God,2  the  mystics  sought  all  the  more  to 
penetrate  its  secrets.  The  Cabbalah  also  divides  the  soul 
into  three  different  substances  according  to  the  three  Biblical 
names,  assigning  their  origins  to  the  three  different  spheres  of 
the  universe,  and  reiterating  the  Platonic  theory  of  the  pre¬ 
existence  of  the  soul  and  its  future  transmigration.  This 
division  into  three  parts  provided  scope  for  all  types  of  theories 
concerning  the  soul  in  its  sensuous,  its  moral,  and  its  intellec¬ 
tual  nature.  Fundamentally  the  Cabbalah  considered  the 
soul  an  emanation  from  the  divine  intellect  with  a  luminous 
character  just  like  the  philosophers.  But  in  the  Platonic 
view  of  the  ascending  order  of  creation,  which  forms  the  basis 
of  the  Cabbalah,  this  mundane  life  is  an  abyss  of  moral  deg¬ 
radation,  so  that  the  soul  yearns  toward  the  primal  Source  of 
light,  finally  to  find  freedom  and  bliss  with  God.3  Thus  the 
later  Cabbalah  returned  to  the  teachings  of  Philo,  the  Jewish 
Plato,  for  whom  death  was  only  the  stripping  off  of  the  earthly 
frame  in  order  to  enter  the  pure  and  luminous  world  of  God. 

1  In  Schaar  ha  Gemul.  2  Ikkarim,  IV,  35. 

*  Zohar ,  I,  96  b;  Yolk.  Rcubeni  to  Deut.  XIX,  2 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Cabala. 


THE  IMMORTAL  SOUL  OF  MAN 


295 


10.  With  Moses  Mendelssohn,  who  in  his  Phcedon  tried  to 
translate  Plato’s  proof  of  immortality  into  modern  terms,  a 
new  attitude  toward  the  nature  and  destiny  of  the  soul  arose 
in  Judaism  among  both  the  philosophers  and  the  educated 
laity.  Mendelssohn  not  only  endeavored  to  prove  the  im¬ 
mortality  of  the  soul  through  its  indivisibility  and  incorporeal¬ 
ity,  as  all  the  neo-Platonists  and  Jewish  philosophers  had  done 
before  him ;  he  also  attempted  to  show  from  the  harmonious 
plan  which  pervades  and  controls  all  of  God’s  creation,  that 
the  soul  may  enter  a  sphere  of  existence  greater  in  extent  and 
content  than  the  little  span  of  earthly  life  which  it  relinquishes. 
The  progress  of  the  soul  toward  its  highest  unfolding,  unsat¬ 
isfied  in  this  life,  demands  a  future  growth  in  the  direction  of 
god-like  perfection.1  At  this  point  the  philosopher  enters  the 
province  of  faith,  and  thus  furnishes  for  all  time  the  cardinal 
point  of  the  belief  in  immortality.  The  divine  spirit  in  man, 
which  is  evinced  in  the  self-conscious,  morally  active  personal¬ 
ity,  bears  within  itself  the  proof  and  promise  of  its  future  life. 
Moreover,  this  corresponds  with  the  belief  in  God  as  One  who 
rules  the  world  for  the  eternal  purposes  and  aims  of  perfection, 
who  cannot  deceive  the  hope  of  the  human  heart  for  a  continued 
living  and  striving  onward  and  forward,  without  thereby  im¬ 
pairing  His  own  perfection.  For  we  all  close  our  lives  without 
having  attained  the  goal  of  moral  and  spiritual  perfection 
toward  which  we  strive ;  and  therefore  our  very  nature  de¬ 
mands  a  world  where  we  may  reach  the  higher  degree  of 
perfection  for  which  we  long.  In  this  sense  we  may  interpret 
the  Psalmist’s  verse  :  “I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with 
(beholding)  Thy  likeness.”  2  That  is :  our  spirit,  when  no 
longer  bound  to  the  earth,  shall  behold  the  divine  glory,  —  a 
vision  which  transcends  our  powers  of  thought. 

11.  In  the  light  of  modern  investigation,  body  and  soul  are 
seen  to  be  indissolubly  bound  together  by  a  reciprocal  relation 

1  See  Kayserling :  Moses  Mendelssohn ,  148  ff.  2  Ps.  XVII,  15. 


296 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


which  either  benefits  or  impedes  them  both.  Wherein  the 
spiritual  bond  exists  that  renders  both  the  physical  organs 
with  their  muscular  and  nervous  systems  and  the  magnetic 
or  electric  currents  which  set  them  in  motion  subservient  to  the 
will  of  the  intellect ;  what  the  mind  actually  is,  into  whose 
deepest  recesses  science  is  casting  its  search-light  to  illumine 
its  processes,  —  these  are  problems  which  will  probably  remain 
ever  incapable  of  solution  by  human  knowledge,  and  will  there¬ 
fore  always  afford  new  food  for  the  imagination.  Yet  it  is 
just  in  periods  like  ours,  when  the  belief  in  God  is  weakening, 
that  the  human  spirit  is  especially  solicitous  to  guard  itself 
against  the  thought  of  the  complete  annihilation  of  its  god-like 
self-conscious  personality.  This  gives  rise  to  the  superstitious 
effort  to  spy  out  the  soul  by  sensory  means  and  to  find  ways  of 
seeing  or  hearing  the  spirits  of  the  dead,  —  a  tendency  which 
is  as  dangerous  to  the  spiritual  and  moral  welfare  of  humanity 
as  was  the  ancient  practice  of  necromancy.1  It  is  therefore 
all  the  more  important  to  base  the  belief  in  immortality  solely 
on  the  God-likeness  of  the  human  soul,  which  is  the  mirror  of 
Divinity.  Just  as  one  postulate  of  faith  holds  that  God,  the 
Creator  of  the  world,  rules  in  accordance  with  a  moral  order, 
so  another  is  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul,  which,  amidst 
yearning  and  groping,  beholds  God.  The  question  where,  and 
how,  this  self-same  ego  is  to  continue,  will  be  left  for  the  power 
of  the  imagination  to  answer  ever  anew. 

12.  Certainly  it  is  both  comforting  and  convenient  to 
imagine  the  dead  who  are  laid  to  rest  in  the  earth  as  being 
asleep  and  to  await  their  reawakening.  As  the  fructifying 
rain  awakens  to  a  new  life  the  seeds  within  the  soil,  so  that 
they  rise  from  the  depths  arrayed  in  new  raiment,  so,  when 
touched  by  the  heavenly  dew  of  life,  will  those  who  linger  in 
the  grave  arise  to  a  new  existence,  clad  in  new  bodies.  This  is 
the  belief  which  inspired  the  pious  founders  of  the  synagogal 
1  See  J.  Jastrow  :  Fact  and  Fable  in  Psychology. 


THE  IMMORTAL  SOUL  OF  MAN 


297 


liturgy  even  before  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  when  they 
expressed  their  praise  of  God’s  power  in  that  He  would  send 
the  fertilizing  rain  upon  the  vegetation  of  the  earth,  and  like¬ 
wise  in  due  time  the  revivifying  dew  upon  the  sleeping  world 
of  man.  Both  appeared  to  the  sages  of  that  age  to  be  evi¬ 
dences  of  the  same  wonder-working  power  of  God.  Whoever, 
therefore,  still  sees  God’s  greatness,  as  they  did,  revealed 
through  miracles,  that  is,  through  interruptions  of  the  natural 
order  of  life,  may  cling  to  the  traditional  belief  in  resurrection, 
so  comforting  in  ancient  times.  On  the  other  hand,  he  who 
recognizes  the  unchangeable  will  of  an  all-wise,  all-ruling  God 
in  the  immutable  laws  of  nature  must  find  it  impossible  to 
praise  God  according  to  the  traditional  formula  as  the  “  Re¬ 
viver  of  the  dead,”  but  will  avail  himself  instead  of  the  expres¬ 
sion  used  in  the  Union  Prayer  Book  after  the  pattern  of  Ein- 
horn,  “He  who  has  implanted  within  us  immortal  life.”  1 

1  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  45.  The  Rabb.  Conf.  of  Philadelphia  in  1869  passed  the 
resolution  :  “The  belief  in  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body  has  no  religious  founda¬ 
tion  (in  Judaism),  and  the  doctrine  of  Immortality  refers  to  the  after-existence 
of  the  Soul  only.”  Comp.  D.  Philipson :  1.  c.,  p.  489  and  492. 


CHAPTER  XLV 


Divine  Retribution:  Reward  and  Punishment. 

1.  The  feeling  of  equity  is  deeply  rooted  in  human  nature, 
demanding  reparation  for  every  wanton  wrong  and  yielding 
recognition  to  every  benevolent  act.  In  fact,  upon  this 
universal  principle  is  based  all  justice  and  to  a  certain  extent 
all  morality.  Judaism  of  every  age  compresses  this  demand 
of  the  religious  and  moral  nature  of  man  into  the  doctrine  : 
God  rewards  the  good  and  punishes  the  evil.  This  doctrine, 
which  is  the  eleventh  of  Maimonides’  articles  of  faith,  con¬ 
stitutes  the  underlying  presumption  of  all  the  Biblical  narra¬ 
tives  as  well  as  of  the  prophetic  threats  and  warnings  and  those 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  in  so  far  as  earthly  success  and  prosperity 
were  regarded  as  the  rewards  of  God  and  earthly  misfortune 
and  misery  as  His  punishments.  In  the  same  degree,  how¬ 
ever,  as  experience  contradicted  this  doctrine,  and  as  examples 
multiplied  of  wicked  persons  revelling  in  prosperity  and 
innocent  ones  laboring  under  adversity  and  woe,  it  became 
necessary  to  defer  the  divine  retribution  more  and  more  to 
the  future  —  at  first  to  a  future  on  earth  and  later  to  one  in 
the  world  to  come,  until  finally  it  developed  into  a  pure 
spiritual  conception  in  full  accord  with  a  higher  ethical  view 
of  life. 

2.  As  long  as  in  the  primitive  process  of  law  the  family  or 
the  clan  was  held  responsible  for  the  crime  of  the  individual, 
ancient  Israel  also  adhered  to  the  idea  that  “God  visits  the 
sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  third  and  fourth  generation,”  as 
Jeremiah  still  did 1  in  full  accord  with  the  second  command- 

1  Jer.  XXXII,  18. 

298 


DIVINE  RETRIBUTION 


299 


ment.  It  was  in  a  far  later  stage  that  the  rabbis  interpreted 
the  words  “of  those  who  hate  Me”  in  the  sense  of  individual 
responsibility.1  Only  in  accordance  with  the  Deuteronomic 
law  which  says:  “The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for 
the  children,  neither  shall  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the 
fathers;  every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own  sin,”2 
did  the  religious  consciousness  rebel  against  the  thought  that 
a  later  generation  should  suffer  for  the  sins  of  its  ancestors, 
and  hence  the  popular  adage  arose,  “The  fathers  have  eaten 
sour  grapes,  and  the  teeth  of  the  children  are  set  on  edge.”  3 
It  is  the  prophet  Ezekiel  who  refutes  once  and  for  all  the  idea  of 
a  guilt  transmitted  to  children  and  consequently  of  hereditary 
sin  and  punishment,  insisting  on  the  doctrine  that  personal 
responsibility  alone  determines  divine  retribution.4  But  here 
a  new  element  affects  divine  retribution.  God’s  long-suffering 
and  mercy  do  not  desire  the  immediate  punishment,  the  death 
of  the  sinner.  He  should  be  given  time  to  return  to  a  better 
mode  of  life.5 

But  the  great  enigma  of  human  destiny,  which  vexes  the 
author  of  the  seventy-third  Psalm  and  that  of  the  book  of 
Job,  still  presses  for  a  better  solution.  It  is  true  that  the  popu¬ 
lar  belief  and  popular  legends  which  are  preserved  in  post- 
Biblical  writings  as  well,  insisted  on  a  justice  which  requites 
“measure  for  measure.”  6  Still  insight  into  actual  life  does 
not  confirm  the  teaching  of  the  popular  philosophy  that  the 
“righteous  will  be  requited  in  the  earth”  and  that  “evil 
pursueth  sinners.  ” 7  The  unshakeable  belief  in  the  justice  of 
God  had  to  find  another  solution  for  life's  antinomies,  and 
was  forced  to  reach  out  for  another  world  in  which  the  divine 
righteousness  would  find  its  complete  realization. 

1  Targ.  to  Ex.  XX,  5 ;  Sanh.  27  b.  2  Deut.  XXIV,  16. 

3  Ezek.  XVIII,  2.  4  Ezek.  XVIII,  20.  6  XVIII,  23,  3 2. 

3  Ex.  XVIII,  11 ;  XXI,  23-25;  Sota  I,  7-9;  Tos.  Sota  III-IV;  Sanh. 
90  a;  B.  Wisdom  XVI-XIX;  Jubilees  IV,  31 ;  II  Macc.  V,  10;  XV,  32. 

7  Prov.  XI,  31 ;  XIII,  21. 


3°° 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


3.  Biblical  Judaism  with  few  exceptions  recognized  only  the 
present  world  and  the  subterranean  world  of  shadows,  a  view 
preserved  in  its  essentials  by  Ben  Sira  and  the  Sadducees, 
who  were  subsequently  declared  heretics.  In  contrast  to 
them  Pharisaic  or  Rabbinic  Judaism  teaches  a  resurrection 
after  death  for  a  life  of  eternal  bliss  or  eternal  torment,  accord¬ 
ing  as  the  divine  judgment  finds  one  righteous  and  another 
wicked.  We  may  leave  aside  the  consideration  that  the  first 
impulse  toward  a  Jewish  belief  in  resurrection  came  from  the 
non-fulfillment  of  the  national  hope,  wherefore  it  was  always 
bound  up  with  the  soil  of  the  Holy  Land,  as  will  be  seen  in 
Chapter  LIV.  The  fact  remains  that  the  divine  judgment  to 
follow  upon  resurrection  was  consistently  regarded  as  a  great 
world-judgment,  which  was  to  decide  the  future  lot  of  all 
men  and  spirits.  It  must  be  noted  also  that  the  apocalyptic 
and  midrashic  literature  often  identifies  the  pious  with  the 
God-fearing  Israelites  as  those  who  shall  arise  to  eternal  life, 
while  the  wicked  are  identified  with  the  idolatrous  heathen, 
who  are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  or,  as  it  is  frequently 
expressed,  to  a  second  death.1 

4.  Exactly  as  the  old  Persian  Mazdaism  expected  the 
resurrection  of  all,  both  good  and  bad,  the  believers  in  Ahura 
Mazda  as  well  as  the  rest  of  humanity,  so  the  apocalyptic 
writers  prior  to  the  Talmudic  period  describe  resurrection  as 
universal :  “In  those  days  the  earth  will  give  back  those  who 
have  been  entrusted  to  her,  and  the  nether-world  will  release 
that  which  it  has  received,  ”  according  to  Enoch  LI,  1.  Simi¬ 
larly  fourth  Esdras  remarks  :  “And  after  seven  days  of  silence 
for  all  creatures,  the  new  order  of  the  world  shall  be  raised  up, 
and  mortality  itself  shall  perish ;  and  the  earth  shall  restore 

1  See  especially  Sanh.  90  b-92  b,  ref.  to  Ex.  VI,  4;  Deut.  XI,  9;  IV, 
5;  XXXI,  16;  Isa.  XXVI,  19;  Dan.  XII,  13;  Ps.  LXXII,  16;  also  Ex.  XV, 
1;  Josh.  VIII,  30;  and  Song  of  Songs,  VII,  10.  On  the  Second  Death  see 
Targ.  to  Deut.  XXXIII,  6;  Isa.  XIV,  19;  LXV,  6;  Jer.  LI,  39;  and  Revela¬ 
tion  XX,  6,  14;  XXI,  8. 


DIVINE  RETRIBUTION 


301 


those  that  are  asleep  in  her ;  and  so  shall  the  dust  give  back 
those  that  dwell  in  silence ;  and  the  chambers  shall  deliver 
those  souls  that  were  committed  unto  them.  The  Most  High 
shall  appear  on  the  throne  of  judgment,  and  shall  say :  Judg¬ 
ment  only  shall  remain,  truth  shall  stand,  and  faith  shall  wax 
strong.  The  good  deeds  shall  be  of  force,  and  wicked  deeds 
shall  no  longer  sleep.  The  lake  of  torment  shall  be  revealed, 
and  opposite  to  it  the  place  of  joy ;  the  furnace  of  Gehinnom 
will  be  visible,  and  opposite  to  it  the  bliss  of  Paradise.  Then 
the  Most  High  will  speak  to  the  heathen  nations,  who  have 
awakened  :  behold  now  Him  whom  ye  have  denied,  whom  ye 
have  not  served,  whose  command  ye  have  abhorred.  Gaze 
now  here  and  there,  —  here  bliss  and  rest,  there  fire  and 
torment.”  1 

The  rabbinic  form  of  the  doctrine  of  resurrection  is  quite 
unambiguous:  “ Those  born  into  the  world  are  destined  to 
die ;  the  dead,  to  live  again ;  and  those  who  enter  the  world 
to  come,  to  be  judged.”  2  And  wherever  the  rabbinic  or 
apocalyptic  literature  mentions  the  share  of  the  pious,  or  of 
Israel,  in  eternal  life,  this  implies  that,  while  these  enter  the 
world  to  come,  the  evil-doers  or  idolaters  shall  enter  hell  for 
eternal  death ;  the  understanding  being  that  there  is  a  univer¬ 
sal  resurrection  for  the  world-judgment. 

5.  The  whole  system  of  eschatology  in  connection  with 
resurrection  arose  undoubtedly  from  the  Persian  doctrine, 
according  to  which  death  together  with  all  that  is  evil  and 
unclean  is  created  by  Ahriman,  the  evil  principle,  and  will 
suffer  annihilation  with  him,  as  soon  as  the  good  principle, 
Ahura  Mazda,  has  achieved  the  final  victory.  Then  Soshiosh 
“the  Savior,”  the  descendant  of  Zoroaster,  will  begin  his 
kingdom  of  eternal  life  for  the  righteous,  coincident  with  the 

1 IV  Ezra  VII,  31  f. ;  comp.  Baruch  Apoc.  42  ff.;  Adam  et  Eva,  42;  II 
Sibyll.,  220-236;  IV  Sibyll.,  180  f. 

2  Aboth  IV,  22. 


302 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


awakening  of  the  dead.1  Pharisaic  Judaism,  however,  gave 
the  hope  of  resurrection  a  deeper  moral  and  religious  meaning. 
The  proofs,  or  rather  analogies  from  nature,  of  the  seeds 
springing  from  the  earth  in  a  new  form,  of  men  awakening 
from  sleep  in  the  morning,  or  of  the  original  creation,  are 
shared  by  the  rabbis  and  the  New  Testament  writers  with  the 
Persians.  On  the  other  hand,  proofs  based  on  the  prophetic 
hope  for  the  future  are  purely  national.  So  also  are  those 
proofs  based  on  the  Biblical  passage  that  the  God  of  the  fathers 
had  sworn  to  the  Patriarchs  to  give  them  the  Promised  Land.2 
Likewise  the  reference  to  the  wondrous  resurrections  related 
in  the  history  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  offers  no  proof  of  a  uni¬ 
versal  resurrection.  A  striking  point  and  one  which  deepens 
the  idea  of  retribution  is  the  simile  of  the  Lame  and  the  Blind3 
employed  by  Jehuda  ha  Nasi  in  a  dialogue  with  the  Emperor 
Antoninus.  The  latter  had  said  that  at  the  last  judgment 
both  soul  and  body  might  deny  all  guilt.  The  body  may 
say :  “The  soul  alone  has  sinned,  for  since  it  has  parted  from 
me,  I  have  lain  motionless  as  a  stone.”  And  the  soul,  on  its 
part,  may  reply:  “It  must  be  the  body  that  sinned,  for 
since  I  have  parted  from  it  I  soar  about  in  the  air  free  as  a 
bird.”  To  this  Jehuda  ha  Nasi  answered:  “A  king  once 
possessed  a  garden  with  splendid  fig-trees,  and  appointed  as 
watchmen  in  it  a  blind  man  and  a  lame  man.  Then  the  lame 
man  spoke  to  the  blind  man,  ‘I  see  fine  figs  up  there;  take 
me  upon  your  shoulders,  and  I  shall  pick  them,  and  we  can 
enjoy  them  together.’  They  did  so,  and  when  the  king 

1  See  Stave,  Ueb.  d.  Einfluss  d.  Parsismus  a.  d.  Judenth.,  145  ff. ;  Boecklen  : 
D.  V erwandtschaft  d.  jued.  christl.  u.  d.  pars.  Eschatologie ;  Schorr:  He  Haluz, 
VII-VIII. 

2  Sanb.  91  a,  b ;  Matt.  XXII,  31  f. 

3  The  parable  is  found  in  an  Apocryphon  ascribed  to  the  prophet  Ezekiel, 
see  Epiphanius  Haeres,  LXIV,  ed.  Dindorf,  II,  683  f.  and  ascribed  to  R. 
Ishmael,  Lev.  R.  IV,  5 ;  in  Sanh.  91  a,  b  it  is  given  in  a  dialogue  with  An- 
tonius;  in  Tanh.  Wayithro,  ed.  Buber,  §  12,  it  is  anonymous. 


DIVINE  RETRIBUTION 


303 


entered  the  garden,  the  figs  were  gone.  But  when  they  were 
held  to  account  for  it,  the  lame  man  said,  ‘How  could  I  have 
taken  them,  since  I  cannot  walk?’  And  the  blind  man  said, 
‘And  I  cannot  see.’  Then  the  king  had  the  lame  man  placed 
upon  the  shoulders  of  the  blind  man  and  judged  them  both 
together.  In  like  manner  will  God  treat  the  body  and  the 
soul,  as  it  is  said : 1  ‘  He  calleth  to  the  heavens  above  —  that 
is,  the  heavenly  element,  the  soul  —  and  to  the  earth  beneath 
—  the  earthly  body  —  and  places  them  together  before  His 
throne  of  judgment.’” 

6.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  idea  that  the  soul  and  body, 
having  committed  good  or  evil  deeds  together  in  this  life, 
should  receive  in  common  their  reward  or  punishment  in  the 
world  to  come,  satisfied  the  Jewish  sense  of  justice  better 
than  the  conception  developed  by  Hellenistic  Judaism  (after 
the  Platonic  and,  in  the  last  resort,  the  Egyptian  view)  that  the 
soul  alone  should  partake  of  eternal  bliss  or  torment.  Never¬ 
theless  the  philosophically  trained  Jewish  thinkers  of  Alexan¬ 
dria  could  not  bring  themselves  to  accept  a  bodily  resurrection, 
and  therefore  emphasized  so  much  more  strongly  the  great 
day  of  judgment  and  the  reward  and  punishment  of  the  soul 
in  the  world  to  come.  Still  we  find  much  inconsistency  among 
various  authors,  sometimes  even  in  the  same  work,  in  the 
conception  of  future  bliss  for  the  good  and  torture  for  the 
wicked.  These  varied  according  to  the  more  sensuous  or 
more  spiritual  view  taken  of  the  soul  and  the  celestial  world, 
and  according  to  the  literal  or  figurative  interpretation  of  the 
Biblical  allusions  to  “fire,”  “worms,  ”  and  the  like  in  the  pun¬ 
ishment  of  evil-doers,  and  of  the  delights  awaiting  the  right¬ 
eous  in  the  future.2 

On  this  point  free  play  was  allowed  to  the  imagination  of  the 
people  and  the  fancy  of  the  Haggadists.  Still,  throughout,  the 

1  Ps.  L,  4. 

2  Isa.  LXVI,  24;  see  Yalkut;  Bousset,  308-321 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Eschatology. 


304 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


solemn  thought  found  its  echo  that  mortal  man  must  give 
account  to  the  inexorable  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead  for 
the  life  just  completed,  in  order  to  be  ushered,  according  to  his 
deserts,  into  the  portals  of  the  celestial  Paradise  or  of  hell.1 
This  led  to  the  view  that  this  whole  mundane  life  is  but  like  a 
wayfarers’  inn  for  the  life  to  come,  or  the  vestibule  of  the 
palace  (more  precisely  the  “banquet-hall”)  of  the  future.2 

7.  A  further  development  of  the  principle  of  justice  in 
application  to  future  retribution  led  not  merely  to  such  a  de¬ 
piction  of  the  tortures  of  hell  and  the  delights  of  heaven  that 
the  maxim:  “measure  for  measure,”  so  often  deviated  from 
in  this  life,  could  find  complete  realization  in  the  world  to 
come.  An  intermediate  stage  also  was  devised  for  those 
whose  merit  or  guilt  would  enroll  them  neither  among  the 
righteous  for  eternal  bliss,  nor  among  the  wicked  for  eternal 
punishment.  While  the  stern  teachers  of  the  school  of  Sham- 
mai  insisted  that  these  mediocre  ones  must  undergo  a  twelve- 
month  process  of  purification  in  the  fires  of  Gehenna,  the 
milder  school  of  Hillel  maintained  that  the  divine  mercy 
would  grant  them  admission  into  Paradise  even  without  the 
fires  of  purgatory,3  either  through  the  merit  of  the  patriarchs4 
or  owing  to  the  deserts  of  a  son  who  has  been  trained  to  rever¬ 
ence  for  God,  as  is  indicated  by  the  legend  concerning  the 
Kaddish  prayer.5  In  any  case,  the  teaching  of  Hillel  concern¬ 
ing  the  all-sufficing  mercy  of  God  swept  aside  the  old  hopeless 
conception  that  eternal  suffering  in  hell  awaits  the  average 
man,  which  was  adhered  to  by  the  Christian  church  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  its  dogma  of  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ.  *  Likewise, 
in  the  dispute  of  schools  as  to  whether  or  not  the  bliss  of  eternal 
life  would  be  accorded  also  to  the  righteous  among  the  heathen, 

1  Aboth  III,  1,  19,  20;  Ber.  28  b.  2  Aboth  IV,  21. 

8Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  3 ;  R.  H.  16  b;  see  J.  E.,  art.  Purgatory. 

4  See  Testament  of  Abraham  XIV ;  comp.  Kohler  in  J.  Q.  R.  VII,  587. 

B  T.  d.  b.  El.  Zuta  XVII,  ed.  Friedman,  p.  23.  See  note,  Kalla  R.  II., 
J.  E.,  art.  Kaddish,  but  comp.  IV  Ezra  VII,  102-115. 


DIVINE  RETRIBUTION 


305 


the  more  humane  view  of  Joshua  ben  Hananiah  prevailed  over 
the  gloomier  one  of  the  Shammaite  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos,  and 
therefore  the  doctrine  became  generally  accepted,  “The 
righteous  of  all  nations  shall  have  a  share  in  the  world  to 
come.”  1 

8.  The  apocalyptic  writers,  who  largely  influenced  the  New 
Testament,  and  also  the  Haggadisfs  refer  with  fond  interest 
to  the  banquet  of  the  pious  in  the  world  to  come,  where  they 
would  be  served  with  heavenly  manna  as  bread,  with  wine 
preserved  from  the  days  of  the  creation,  and  with  the  flesh 
of  the  Leviathan  or  the  fruit  of  the  Tree  of  Life.2  On  the 
other  hand  they  elaborated  the  tortures  of  the  evil-doers  in 
hell  which  are  to  afford  a  pleasing  sight  to  the  pious  in  heaven, 
just  as  the  torments  of  the  sinners  are  aggravated  by  the  sight 
of  the  righteous  enjoying  all  delights.3  But  at  the  same  time 
we  meet  with  a  more  refined  and  spiritual  conception  of  future 
reward  and  punishment  among  the  disciples  of  R.  Jehuda  ha 
Nasi,  in  the  Babylonian  Rab,  and  the  Palestinian  R.  Johanan 

1Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2;  Sanh.  105  a;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  IX,  18:  “The  wicked 
shall  return  to  Sheol,  all  the  nations  that  forget  God,”  R.  Joshua  taking  the  last 
sense  as  restrictive  and  R.  Eliezer  as  a  generalization. 

2  For  the  banquet  of  the  pious  see  Aboth.  Ill,  16 ;  Shab.  153  a ;  Pes.  R.  XLI ; 
comp.  Luke  XIII,  28 ;  XXII,  30,  and  parallels.  The  idea  rests  on  Isa.  LXV, 
13,  which  is  taken  literally,  and  Ps.  XXIII,  5;  see  Midr.  Teh.,  ad  loc.  For  the 
Leviathan  and  Behemoth  see  Job  XL,  15-30;  B.  B.  74  b-75  a;  Enoch  LX, 
7  f. ;  IV  Ezra  VI,  52;  Baruch  Apoc.  XXIX,  4;  Targ.  Ps.  CIV,  26;  Lev.  R. 
XIII,  3.  For  the  giant  bird  Ziz  see  Ps.  L,  40-41 ;  Targ.  and  Midr.  Teh.,  ad  loc. ; 
Tanh.  Beshallah,  ed.  Buber,  24;  Jellinek,  B.  H.  Ill,  76,  80.  For  the  heavenly 
manna  Ps.  LXXVIII,  24;  Joma  75  b;  Hag.  12  b;  Tanh.  Beshallah,  ed.  Buber, 
21;  Sibyll.  Prcemium  87;  II,  318;  III,  746;  IV  Ezra  IX,  19.  For  the  wine 
see  Ex.  R.  XXV,  10;  Ber.  34  b;  Sanh.  99  a;  Matt.  XXVI,  29;  comp,  also 
Num.  R.  XIII,  3  for  other  fruits  of  Paradise.  For  the  Persian  origin  of  these 
ideas  see  Bundahish,  XIX,  13  ;  XXX,  25.  The  Behemoth  corresponds  with  the 
primeval  ox  Hadhayos,  whose  flesh  produces  the  sap  of  immortality;  the  giant 
fish  and  bird  with  Bundahish,  XVIII,  5-8 ;  XIX,  16-19 ;  the  wine  corresponds 
with  the  Parsee  Horn :  Bundahish,  XXX,  25.  See  Windishman :  Zoroastr.  Stud., 
92  f.,  252  f.,  and  Boeklen,  1.  c.,  p.  68. 

3  Shab.  153  a,  with  ref.  to  Isa.  LXV,  13-14;  LXVI,  24;  IV  Ezra  VII,  83,  93. 


x 


3°6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


and  his  pupil  Simeon  ben  Lakish.  “In  the  future  world,” 
says  Rab,  “there  are  no  sensual  enjoyments  nor  passions,  but 
the  righteous  sit  at  the  table  of  God  with  wreaths  upon  their 
heads  (like  the  Greek  sages  at  a  symposium !) ,  feeding  on  the 
radiance  of  the  divine  majesty,  as  did  the  chosen  ones  of  Israel 
on  the  heights  of  Sinai.”  1  R.  Johanan  teaches,  “All  the 
promises  held  forth  in  Scripture  in  definite  form  as  reward  for 
the  future,  refer  to  the  Messianic  era,  whereas  in  regard  to  the 
bliss  awaiting  the  pious  in  the  world  to  come,  the  words  of 
Isaiah  hold  good  :  ‘  No  eye  hath  seen  it,  0  God,  beside  Thee.’  ” 2 
Simeon  ben  Lakish  even  went  so  far  as  to  say,  “There  is 
neither  hell  nor  paradise.  Instead,  God  sends  out  the  sun 
in  its  full  strength  from  its  encasement,  and  the  wicked  are 
consumed  by  its  heat,  while  the  pious  find  delight  and  healing 
in  its  beams.”  3 

However,  the  popular  imagination  demanded  more  per¬ 
ceptible  pictures  of  heaven  and  hell,  if  fear  of  punishment  was 
to  deter  men  from  sin,  and  hope  of  reward  to  lead  them  to 
virtue.  The  description  of  the  modes  of  reward  and  punish¬ 
ment  for  the  future  in  the  Koran  is  the  outcome  of  mingled 
Persian  and  Jewish  popular  conceptions,  and  its  crass  sensuous¬ 
ness  exerted  in  turn  a  decisive  influence  upon  the  entire  Gaonic 
period,4  leaving  its  mark  upon  even  so  clear  a  thinker  as  Saadia. 
Not  only  does  he  admit  into  his  philosophic  work  all  the 
crude  and  conflicting  descriptions  of  the  future  world,  but  he 
also  argues  for  the  eternity  of  the  punishments  of  hell  and  of  the 
delights  of  heaven  as  logical  necessities,  because  only  such 
could  sufficiently  deter  or  allure  mankind,  and  a  righteous 
God  must  certainly  carry  out  His  threats  and  promises.5 

1  Ber.  17  a.  2Ber.  34  b;  with  ref.  to  Isa.,  LXIV,  3. 

3Ab.  Zar.  36  with  ref.  to  Mai.  Ill,  19-22. 

4  See  Jellinek,  B.  H.  I,  II  and  III,  the  Treatise  on  Gehinnom  and  Gan 
Eden. 

5  Emunoth  VII,  IX,  and  comp.  J.  Guttman ;  Religions phil.  des  Saadia ,  208 

f.,  249  f- 


DIVINE  RETRIBUTION 


307 


9.  The  entire  Jewish  philosophy  or  theology  of  the  Middle 
Ages  remained  under  the  influence  of  the  traditional  belief  in 
resurrection.  Even  Maimonides,  whose  purely  spiritual  con¬ 
ception  of  the  soul  and  of  salvation  is  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  the  belief  in  bodily  resurrection,  and  who  accordingly 
dwells  instead,  in  both  his  Moreh  and  his  Code,  on  the  future 
world  of  spirits,  with  explicit  emphasis  on  their  incorporeality, 
did  not  have  the  courage  to  break  altogether  with  the  tradi¬ 
tional  belief  in  resurrection.  In  his  apologetic  treatise  on  res¬ 
urrection  he  even  attempts  to  present  it  as  a  miraculous  act 
of  God  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  intellect.  He  omits,  however, 
to  specify  what  purpose  this  miracle  may  serve,  since  in  the 
Maimonidean  system  reward  and  punishment  would  be  ad¬ 
ministered  in  the  world  of  spirits  in  a  much  purer  and  more 
satisfactory  manner.1  The  same  standpoint  is  taken  also  by 
Jehuda  ha  Levi  as  well  as  by  Crescas  and  Albo.2  If  then 
resurrection  be  a  miracle,  it  falls  outside  the  scope  of  philo¬ 
sophic  speculation  and  becomes  a  matter  of  faith ;  accordingly 
the  mystics  from  Nahmanides  down  to  Manasseh  ben  Israel 
associated  with  it  the  grossest  conceptions.3 

10.  The  actual  view  of  Maimonides  concerning  future 
retribution  is  expressed  clearly  and  unambiguously  in  both 
his  early  product,  the  commentary  on  the  Mishna,  and  in  the 
ripest  fruit  of  his  life  work,  the  Mishneh  Torah,  where  he  says 
“Not  immortality,  but  the  power  to  win  eternal  life  through 
the  knowledge  and  the  love  of  God  is  implanted  in  the  human 
soul.  If  it  has  the  ability  to  free  itself  from  the  bondage  of 
the  senses  and  by  means  of  the  knowledge  of  God  to  lift  itself 
to  the  highest  morality  and  the  purest  thinking,  then  it  has 
attained  divine  bliss,  true  immortality,  and  it  enters  the  realm 

1  See  Joel,  Religions phil.  d.  Mose  b.  Mainton.,  p.  40. 

2  Cuzari,  I,  15 ;  V,  14  ;  Or  Adonai  III,  4,  2.  See  Joel :  Crescas ,  p.  74  f. ; 
Albo:  Ikkarim ,  IV,  29-41. 

3  Nahmanides,  1.  c.,  last  chapter;  Manasse  b.  Israel  in  Nishmat  Chayim. 


3°8 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  the  eternal  Spirit  together  with  the  angels.  If  it  sinks  into 
the  sensuousness  of  earthly  existence,  then  it  is  cut  off  from 
eternal  life ;  it  suffers  annihilation  like  the  beast.  In  reality 
this  life  eternal  is  not  the  future,  but  is  already  potentially 
present  and  invariably  at  hand  in  the  spirit  of  man  himself, 
with  its  constant  striving  toward  the  highest.  When  the 
rabbis  speak  of  paradise  and  hell,  describing  vividly  the  de¬ 
lights  of  the  one  and  the  torments  of  the  other,  these  are  only 
metaphors  for  the  agony  of  sin  and  the  happiness  of  virtue. 
True  piety  serves  God  neither  from  fear  of  punishment  nor 
from  desire  for  reward,  as  servants  obey  their  master,  but 
from  pure  love  of  God  and  truth.  Thus  the  saying  of  Ben 
Azai  is  verified,  ‘The  reward  of  a  good  deed  is  the  good  deed 
itself  /  1  Only  children  need  bribes  and  threats  to  be  trained 
to  morality.  Thus  religion  trains  mankind.  The  people  who 
cannot  penetrate  into  the  kernel  need  the  shell,  the  external 
means  of  threats  and  promises.”  2  These  splendid  words  of 
the  great  thinker  require  supplementing  or  modification  in 
only  one  direction,  and  that  has  been  afforded  by  the  keenest 
critic  among  Jewish  philosophers,  Hasdai  Crescas.  Too 
deeply  enmeshed  in  the  Aristotelian  system,  Maimonides 
found  the  happiness  and  immortality  of  man  solely  in  the  ac¬ 
quired  intellectual  power  which  becomes  part  of  the  divine 
intellect,  and  the  mere  knowledge  of  God  is  to  him  tanta¬ 
mount  to  the  blissful  enjoyment  of  the  pious  in  the  radiance  of 
God’s  majesty.  Consequently  those  who  strive  and  soar 
heavenward  through  their  moral  conduct  and  noble  aspirations, 
without  at  the  same  time  being  thinkers,  receive  no  reward. 
Against  this  Aristotelian  one-sidedness  Crescas  emphasizes 
God’s  love  and  goodness  for  which  the  righteous  yearn,  and  in 
whose  pursuit  man  finds  perfection  and  happiness.  Not  for 
the  sake  of  attaining  bliss  shall  we  love  God  and  practice 
virtue  and  truth,  but  to  love  God  and  practice  virtue  is  itself 
1  Aboth.  IV,  2.  2  Com.  to  Sanh.  XI  and  H.  Teshubah,  VIII. 


DIVINE  RETRIBUTION 


309 


true  bliss.  This  is  the  nearness  of  God  referred  to  by  the 
Psalmist  and  declared  to  be  man’s  highest  good.1  There  is 
no  need  of  any  other  reward  than  this,  and  there  is  no  greater 
punishment  than  to  be  deprived  of  this  boon  forever.2 

11.  In  the  face  of  these  two  great  thinkers,  to  whom  Spinoza 
owes  the  fundamental  ideas  of  his  ethics,3  the  question  con¬ 
sidered  by  Albo,  whether  the  eternal  duration  of  the  tortures  of 
hell  is  reconcilable  with  the  divine  mercy,4  a  question  which  still 
plays  an  important  role  in  Christian  theology,  and  which  was 
probably  suggested  to  Albo  through  his  disputations  with  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  Church,  — is  for  us  superfluous  and  super¬ 
seded.  Our  modern  conceptions  of  time  and  space  admit 
neither  a  place  or  a  world-period  for  the  reward  and  punish¬ 
ment  of  souls,  nor  the  intolerable  conception  of  eternal  joy 
without  useful  action  and  eternal  agony  without  any  moral 
purpose.  Modern  man  knows  that  he  bears  heaven  and 
hell  within  his  own  bosom.  Indeed,  so  much  more  difficult  is 
the  life  of  duty  which  knows  of  no  other  reward  than  happi¬ 
ness  through  harmony  with  God,  the  Father  of  the  immortal 
soul,  and  of  no  other  punishment  than  the  soul’s  distress  at  its 
inner  discord  with  the  primal  Source  and  the  divine  Ideal  of  all 
morality.  All  the  more  powerfully  is  modern  man  controlled 
by  the  thought  that  the  universe  permits  no  stagnation,  no 
barren  enjoyment  or  barren  suffering,  but  that  every  death 
marks  the  transition  to  a  higher  goal  for  greater  accomplish¬ 
ment.  This  yearning  of  the  soul  finds  expression  in  the  Tal¬ 
mudic  maxim,  “The  righteous  find  rest  neither  in  this  world, 
nor  in  the  world  to  come,  as  it  is  said,  ‘They  go  from  strength 
to  strength,  until  they  appear  before  God  on  Zion.’”  5 

1  Ps.  LXXIII,  28. 

2  Or  Adonai,  II,  55  ;  VI,  1 ;  comp.  Joel,  1.  c.,  56-62 ;  comp.  Bahya  :  Hoboth , 
Halebaboth ,  Shaar  Bitahon. 

3  See  Joel :  Z.  Gen.  d.  Lehre  Spinoza,  p.  64.  4  Ikkarim ,  IV,  35— 3^» 

5  Ber.  64  a,  with  ref.  to  Ps.  LXXXIV,  8;  see  also  Midr.  Teh.  ad  loc. 


CHAPTER  XL VI 


The  Individual  and  the  Race 

i.  In  every  system  of  belief  the  object  of  divine  care  and 
guidance  is  the  individual.  His  soul  and  his  conscience  raise 
him  up,  especially  according  to  the  Jewish  doctrine,  to  the 
divine  image,  to  Godchildship.  His  freedom  and  moral 
responsibility  are  the  patent  of  nobility  for  his  divine  nature ; 
his  ego,  controlling  external  forces  and  carrying  out  its  own 
designs,  vouches  for  his  immortality.  Nevertheless  the  spirit 
of  the  Biblical  language  indicates  rightly  that  the  individual 
is  only  a  son  of  man,  —  ben  adam ,  —  that  is,  a  segment  or 
member  of  the  human  race,  but  not  the  perfect  typical  ex¬ 
emplification  of  the  whole  of  mankind.  From  the  social 
organism  he  receives  what  he  is,  what  he  has,  and  what  he 
ought  to  do,  both  his  nature  and  his  destiny;  and  only  in 
association  with  the  community  and  under  the  guidance  of 
the  highest  ideal  of  humanity  can  he  attain  true  perfection. 
Only  mankind  as  a  whole,  in  its  cooperation,  as  it  extends  over 
the  vast  expanse  of  the  earth,  and  in  its  succession  which 
reaches  through  the  centuries  of  the  world’s  history,  can  bring 
to  full  development  the  divine  image  in  man,  his  moral  and 
religious  nature  with  all  its  varied  potentialities.  It  is  man 
collectively  who  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  receives  the 
command  to  subject  the  earth  with  all  its  creatures  to  his 
cultural  purposes.1  In  whatever  stage  of  culture  we  meet 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Adam,  and  Jellinek  :  Bezelem  Elohim ,  Sermon  IV.  The  term 
humanity  arose  among  the  Stoics.  See  Reizenstein :  Wesen  u.  Werden  d. 
Humanitat;  comp.  Schmidt,  Ethik  d.  Griechen,  II,  324,  477;  and  Zeller,  Griech. 
Philo.  Ill,  1,  287,  299.  For  the  rabbinical  Berioth  for  humanity  see  B.  Sira, 
XVI,  16. 


310 


THE  INDIVIDUAL  AND  THE  RACE 


311 

man,  his  modes  of  thought  and  speech,  his  customs  and  moral 
views,  even  his  spiritual  faculties  are  the  result  of  a  long  his¬ 
toric  process  of  development,  the  product  of  an  extremely 
complicated  past,  as  well  as  the  basis  of  a  future  which  ex¬ 
pands  in  all  directions.  The  ancients  expressed  this  in  their 
suggestive  way,  remarking  in  connection  with  the  verse  of  the 
Psalm,  “  Thine  eyes  did  see  mine  unformed  substance,  and  in 
Thy  book  they  were  ail  written,”  1  that  at  the  creation  of  the 
first  man  God  recorded  the  succession  of  races  with  their  sages, 
seers  and  leaders  until  the  end  of  time.2  And  when  the 
Haggadists  say  that  in  creating  man  God  took  dust  from  every 
part  of  the  world,  so  that  he  would  be  everywhere  at  home,3 
again  they  were  thinking  of  mankind.  Similarly  in  the  passage 
from  the  Psalms,  “Thou  hast  hemmed  me  in  behind  and 
before,”  they  explain  that  God  made  the  first  man  with  two 
faces,  one  looking  forward  and  the  other  backward,  that  is, 
with  a  Janus  head ;  and  thus  they  regard  man  in  his  relation 
to  the  past  and  the  future,  in  his  historic  continuity.4  As  both 
physically  and  spiritually  he  is  the  heir  of  innumerable  an¬ 
cestors  who  have  transmitted  to  him  with  their  blood  all 
their  idiosyncrasies  and  capacities  in  a  peculiar  combination, 
so  will  he  transmit  both  consciously  and  unconsciously  the 
inherited  possessions  of  mankind  to  future  generations  for 
continued  growth  or  for  degeneration.  He  forms  but  a  link 
in  the  great  chain  of  history,  whose  goal  is  the  perfected  ideal 
of  humanity,  the  completed  idea  of  man.  This  was  the  under¬ 
lying  thought  of  Ben  Azzai  in  his  dispute  wih  R.  Akiba,  who 
held  that  the  principal  maxim  of  Jewish  teaching  is  “Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  In  opposition  to  this 
Ben  Azzai  presented  as  the  most  important  lesson  of  the  Bible 

1  Ps.  CXXXIX,  16. 

2  Midr.  Teh.,  ad  loc. ;  Pesik.  R.  XXIII ;  Gen.  R.  XXIV,  2 ;  Sanh.  38  b  after 
Seder  Olam  at  the  close. 

3  Gen.  R.  VIII,  1. 

4Eodem:  Midr.  Teh.  to  Ps.  CXXXIX,  5;  Ber.  61  a. 


312 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  verse  which  says,  “This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of 
man ;  in  the  day  that  God  created  man,  in  the  likeness  of 
God  made  He  him.”  1  The  godlikeness  of  man  develops  more 
and  more  through  the  evolution  of  the  human  race.  This  is 
the  basic  force  for  all  human  love  and  all  human  worth. 

2.  This  social  bond  existing  between  the  individual  and  the 
race  imposes  upon  him  in  accordance  with  his  occupation 
certain  duties  in  the  same  degree  as  it  confers  benefits.  Ben 
Zoma,  a  colleague  of  Ben  Azzai,  expressed  this  as  follows : 
When  he  saw  great  crowds  of  people  together,  he  exclaimed, 
“Praised  be  Thou  who  hast  created  all  these  to  serve  me.” 
In  explanation  of  this  blessing  he  said,  “How  hard  the  first 
man  in  his  loneliness  must  have  toiled,  until  he  could  eat  a 
morsel  of  bread  or  wear  a  garment,  but  I  find  everything  pre¬ 
pared.  The  various  workmen,  from  the  farmer  to  the  miller 
and  the  baker,  from  the  weaver  to  the  tailor,  all  labor  for  me. 
Can  I  then  be  ungrateful  and  be  oblivious  of  my  duty?”2 
In  the  same  sense  he  interprets  the  last  verse  in  Koheleth, 
“This  is  the  end  of  the  matter;  fear  God  and  keep  His  com¬ 
mandments,  for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man.”  That  is  to  say, 
all  mankind  toils  for  him  who  does  so.  Thus  does  human  life 
rest  upon  a  reciprocal  relation,  upon  mutual  duty.3 

3.  Man  is  a  social  being  who  must  strike  root  in  many 
spheres  of  life  in  order  that  the  variegated  blossoms  and  fruits 
of  his  spiritual  and  emotional  nature  may  sprout  forth.  The 
more  richly  the  communal  life  is  specialized  into  professions 
and  occupations,  the  more  does  the  province  of  the  individual 
expand,  and  the  more  difficult  it  is  for  him  to  attain  perfection 
on  all  sides.  According  to  his  faculties  and  predisposition 
he  must  always  develop  one  or  the  other  side  of  human  en¬ 
deavor  and  pursue  now  the  beautiful,  now  the  good,  now  the 
true  and  now  the  useful,  if  as  the  image  of  God  he  is  to  emulate 

1  Gen.  R.  XXIV,  8.  2  Tos.  Ber.  VII,  2 ;  Ber.  58  a. 

8  Ber.  6  b;  Shab.  30  b;  see  Rashi  (against  Bacher :  Ag.  Tann .,  I,  432) 


THE  INDIVIDUAL  AND  THE  RACE 


3i  3 


the  Ideal  of  all  existence,  the  Pattern  of  all  creation.  Con¬ 
sequently  he  may  reflect  some  radiance  of  the  divine  glory  in 
his  character  and  achievements,  whether  as  moral  hero,  as 
sage  and  thinker,  as  statesman  and  battler  for  freedom,  as 
artist,  or  as  the  discoverer  of  new  forces  and  new  worlds  ;  and 
yet  the  full  splendor  of  God’s  greatness  is  mirrored  only  by 
mankind  as  a  whole  through  its  ceaseless  common  action  and 
interaction.  Therefore  Judaism  deprecates  every  attempt  to 
present  a  single  individual,  be  he  ever  so  noble  or  wise,  as  the 
ideal  of  all  human  perfection,  as  a  perfect  man,  free  from  fault 
or  blemish.  “  There  is  none  holy  as  the  Lord,  for  there  is  none 
beside  Thee,”  says  Scripture.1  Instead  of  extolling  any  single 
mortal  as  the  type  or  ideal  of  perfection,  our  sages  rather  say 
with  reference  to  the  lofty  characters  of  the  Bible :  “  There  is 
no  generation  which  cannot  show  a  man  with  the  love  for 
righteousness  of  an  Abraham,  or  the  nobility  of  spirit  of  a 
Moses,  or  the  love  for  truth  of  a  Samuel.”  2  That  is  to  say, 
every  age  creates  its  own  heroes,  who  reflect  the  majesty  of 
God  in  their  own  way. 

4.  As  man  is  the  keystone  of  all  creation,  so  he  is  called  upon 
to  take  his  full  share  in  the  progress  of  the  race.  “He  who 
formed  the  earth  created  it  not  a  waste ;  He  formed  it  to  be 
inhabited,”  says  the  prophet.3  True  humanity  has  its  seat, 
not  in  the  life  of  the  recluse,  but  in  the  family  circle,  amid 
mutual  love  and  loyalty  between  husband  and  wife,  between 
parents  and  children.  The  sages,  with  their  keen  insight  into 
the  spirit  of  the  Scripture,  point  to  the  fact  that  it  is  man  and 
wife  together  who  first  receive  the  name  of  “man,”  because 
only  the  mutual  helpfulness  and  influence,  the  care  and  toil 
for  one  another  draw  forth  the  treasures  of  the  soul,  and  create 
relations  which  warrant  permanency  and  give  promise  of  a 
future.4 


1 1  Sam.  II,  2. 

8  Isa.  LXV,  18 ;  see  Yeb.  62  a. 


2  Gen.  R.  LVI,  9. 

4  Gen.  R.  XVII,  2. 


3T4 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


5.  Still  the  family  circle  itself  is  only  a  segment  of  the 
nation,  which  creates  speech  and  custom,  and  assigns  to  each 
person  his  share  in  the  common  activity  of  the  various  classes 
of  men.  Only  within  the  social  bond  of  the  nation  or  tribe  is 
the  interdependence  of  all  brought  home  to  the  consciousness 
of  the  individual,  together  with  all  the  common  moral  obliga¬ 
tions  and  religious  yearnings.  Through  the  few  elect  ones  of 
the  nation  or  tribe,  God’s  voice  is  heard  as  to  what  is  right 
in  both  custom  and  law,  and  through  them  the  individual  is 
roused  to  a  sense  of  duty.  It  is  society  which  enables  the 
human  mind  to  triumph  over  physical  necessity  by  ever  new 
discoveries  of  tools  and  means  of  life,  thus  to  attain  freedom 
and  prosperity,  and,  through  meditation  over  the  continually 
expanding  realm  of  God’s  world,  to  build  up  the  various  sys¬ 
tems  of  science  and  of  art. 

6.  But  the  single  nation  also  is  too  dependent  upon  the 
conditions  of  its  historic  past,  of  its  land  and  its  racial  charac¬ 
teristics,  to  bring  the  divine  image  to  its  full  development  in  a 
perfect  man.  Humanity  as  a  whole  comes  to  its  own,  to  true 
self-consciousness,  only  through  the  reciprocal  contact  of 
race  with  race,  through  the  cooperation  of  the  various  circles 
and  classes  of  life  which  extend  beyond  the  narrow  limits  of 
nationality  and  have  in  view  common  interests  and  aims, 
whether  in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  in  the  achievement  of  good, 
or  in  the  creation  of  the  useful  and  the  beautiful.  Only 
when  the  various  nations  and  groups  of  men  learn  to  regard 
themselves  as  members  of  one  great  family,  will  the  life  of  the 
individual  find  its  true  value  in  relation  to  the  idea  and  the 
ideal  of  humanity.  Then  only  will  the  unity  and  harmony 
of  the  entire  cosmic  life  find  its  reflection  in  the  blending  of  the 
factors  and  forces  of  human  society. 

7.  Judaism  has  evolved  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  mankind 
as  a  corollary  of  its  ethical  monotheism.  Therefore  the  Bible 
begins  the  history  of  the  world  with  the  creation  of  Adam  and 


THE  INDIVIDUAL  AND  THE  RACE 


315 


Eve,  the  one  human  pair.  The  covenant  which  God  concluded 
after  the  flood  with  Noah,  the  father  of  the  new  mankind, 
has  its  corresponding  goal  at  the  end  of  time  in  the  divine 
covenant  which  is  to  include  all  tribes  of  men  in  one  great 
brotherhood ;  and  so  also  the  dispersion  of  man  through  the 
confusion  of  tongues  at  the  building  of  the  Tower  of  Babel  has 
its  counterpart  in  the  rallying  of  all  nations  at  the  end  of  time 
for  the  worship  of  the  One  and  Only  God  in  a  pure  tongue 
and  a  united  spirit  on  Zion’s  heights.1  Whatever  the  civiliza¬ 
tions  of  Greece  and  Rome  and  the  Stoic  philosophy  have 
achieved  for  the  idea  of  humanity,  Judaism  has  offered  in  its 
prophetic  hope  for  a  Messianic  future  the  guiding  idea  for  the 
progress  of  man  in  history,  thus  giving  him  the  impulse  to 
ceaseless  efforts  toward  the  highest  of  all  aims  for  the  realiza¬ 
tion  of  which  all  nations  and  classes,  all  systems  of  faith  and 
thought,  must  labor  together  for  millenniums  to  come. 

1  For  the  term  A  guddah  A  hath  in  the  New  Year  and  Atonement  Day  Prayer, 
Singer’s  Prayerbook,  p.  239,  comp.  Gen.  R.  LXXXVIII,  6,  and  XXXIX,  3. 


CHAPTER  XL VII 


The  Moral  Elements  of  Civilization 

1.  Because  Judaism  sees  the  attainment  of  human  perfec¬ 
tion  only  when  the  divine  in  man  has  reached  complete  de¬ 
velopment  through  the  unimpeded  activity  of  all  his  spiritual, 
moral,  and  social  forces,  it  insists  upon  the  full  recognition  of 
all  branches  of  human  society  as  instruments  of  man’s  eleva¬ 
tion,  either  individually  or  collectively.  It  deprecates  the 
idea  that  any  force  or  faculty  of  human  life  be  regarded  as 
unholy  and  therefore  be  suppressed.  It  thus  rejects  on  prin¬ 
ciple  monastic  renunciation  and  isolation,  pointing  to  the 
Scriptural  verse,  “He  who  formed  the  earth  created  it  not 
a  waste;  He  formed  it  to  be  inhabited.1” 

2.  Accordingly  Judaism  regards  the  establishment  of 
family  life  through  marriage  as  a  duty  obligatory  on  man¬ 
kind,  and  sees  in  the  entrance  into  the  marital  relation  an  act 
of  life’s  supreme  consecration.  In  contrast  to  the  celibacy 
sanctioned  by  the  Church  and  approved  by  the  rabbis  only 
under  certain  conditions,  and  exceptionally  for  their  holy 
exercises  by  the  Essenes,  the  Tannaite  R.  Eliezer  pronounces 
the  man  who  through  bachelorhood  shirks  the  duty  of  rearing 
children  to  be  guilty  of  murder  against  the  human  race. 
Another  calls  him  a  despoiler  of  the  divine  image.  Another 
rabbi  says  that  such  a  one  renounces  his  privilege  of  true 
humanity,  in  so  far  as  only  in  the  married  state  can  happiness, 
blessing,  and  peace  be  attained.2  It  is  significant  as  to  the 
spirit  of  Judaism  that,  while  other  religions  regard  the  celi¬ 
bacy  of  the  priests  and  saints  as  signs  of  highest  sanctity,  the 

1  Isa.  XLV,  1 8.  2  Yeb.  62  a,  b. 

316 


THE  MORAL  ELEMENTS  OF  CIVILIZATION  31 7 


Jewish  law  expressly  commands  that  the  high  priest  shall  not 
be  allowed  to  observe  the  solemn  rites  of  the  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment  if  unmarried.1  Love  for  the  wife,  the  keeper  and  guar¬ 
dian  of  the  home,  must  attune  his  heart  to  tenderness  and 
sympathy,  if  he  is  to  plead  for  the  people  before  the  Holy  God. 
He  can  make  intercession  for  the  household  of  Israel  only  if 
he  himself  has  founded  a  family,  in  which  are  practiced  faith¬ 
fulness  and  modesty,  love  and  regard  for  the  life-companion, 
all  the  domestic  virtues  inherited  from  the  past. 

3.  Another  moral  factor  for  human  development  is  indus¬ 
try,  which  secures  to  the  individual  his  independence  and  his 
dignity  when  he  engages  in  creative  labor  after  the  divine 
pattern,  and  which  rewards  him  with  comfort  and  the  joy  of 
life.  This  also  is  so  highly  valued  by  Judaism  that  industrial 
activity,  which  unlocks  from  the  earth  ever  new  treasures  to 
enrich  human  life,  is  enjoined  upon  all,  even  those  pursuing 
more  spiritual  vocations.  “Seest  thou  a  man  diligent  in  his 
business?  He  shall  stand  before  kings.” 2  “When  thou 
eatest  the  labor  of  thy  hands,  happy  art  thou  and  it  shall  be 
well  with  thee.”  3  In  commenting  on  this  last  verse,  the  sages 
say:  “This  means  that  thou  wilt  be  doubly  blessed;  happy 
art  thou  in  this  world,  and  it  shall  be  well  with  thee  in  the 
world  to  come.”4  Again  they  say,  “No  labor,  however 
humble,  is  dishonoring,” 5  also:  “Idleness,  even  amid  great 
wealth,  leads  to  the  wasting  of  the  intellect.”  6  Moreover  it  is 
said,  “Whoever  neglects  to  train  his  son  to  a  trade,  rears  him 
to  become  a  robber.”7  True,  there  were  some  among  the 
pious  who  themselves  abstained  from  participation  in  indus¬ 
try,  and  therefore  proclaimed,  in  the  same  tenor  as  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  “Behold  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  the  birds  of 
heaven,  they  sow  not  and  reap  not,  and  their  heavenly  Father 

1  Yoma  I,  1.  2  Prov.  XXII,  29.  3  Ps.  CXXVIII,  2. 

4  Ber.  8  a.  5  Ned.  49  b.  6  Keth.  V,  5,  59  b. 

7  Kid.  29  a;  comp.  R.  Simeon  b.  Yohai,  Mek.  Beshallah,  56. 


3i8 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


cares  for  them.”1  But  these  formed  an  exception,  while  the 
majority  of  Jewish  teachers  extolled  the  real  blessing  of  labor 
and  its  efficacy  in  ennobling  heart  and  spirit.2 

4.  Neither  does  Judaism  begrudge  man  the  joy  of  life 
which  is  the  fruit  of  industry,  nor  rob  it  of  its  moral  value. 
On  the  contrary,  that  ascetic  spirit  which  encourages  self¬ 
mortification  and  rigid  renunciation  of  all  pleasure  is  declared 
sinful.3  Instead,  we  are  told  that  in  the  world  to  come  man 
shall  have  to  give  account  for  every  enjoyment  offered  him  in 
this  life,  whether  he  used  it  gratefully  or  rejected  it  in  ingrati¬ 
tude.4  Abstinence  is  declared  to  be  praiseworthy  only  in 
curbing  wild  desires  and  passions.  For  the  rest,  true  piety  lies 
in  the  consecration  of  every  gift  of  God,  every  pleasure  of  life 
which  He  has  offered,  and  using  it  in  His  service,  so  that  the 
seal  of  holiness  shall  be  imprinted  even  upon  the  satisfaction 
of  the  most  sensuous  desires. 

5.  Judaism,  then,  lays  special  emphasis  upon  sociability  as 
advancing  all  that  is  good  and  noble  in  man.  The  life  of  the 
recluse,  according  to  its  teaching,  is  of  little  use  to  the  world 
at  large  and  hence  of  no  moral  value.  Only  in  association 
with  one’s  fellow-men  does  life  find  incentive  and  opportunity 
for  worthy  work.  “Either  a  life  among  friends  or  death” 
is  a  Talmudic  proverb.5  Unselfish  friendship  like  that  of 
David  and  Jonathan  is  lauded  and  pointed  out  for  imitation.6 
Through  it  man  learns  to  step  beyond  the  narrow  boundaries 
of  his  ego,  and  in  caring  for  others  he  will  purify  and  exalt  his 
own  soul,  until  at  last  its  love  will  include  all  mankind. 

6.  “Iron  sharpeneth  iron;  so  a  man  sharpeneth  the  coun¬ 
tenance  of  his  friend,”  says  the  book  of  Proverbs,7  and  the 
sages  derive  from  this  verse  the  doctrine  that  learning  does 
not  thrive  in  solitude.8  A  single  log  does  not  nourish  the 

1  Kid.  82  a.  2  Abot.  I,  10;  II,  2;  B.  B.  11  a.  3  Taan.  11  a. 

4  Yer.  Kid.  IV  at  the  close.  5  Taan.  23  a.  6  Abot.  V,  19. 

7Prov.  XXVII,  17.  8  Taan.  7  a. 


THE  MORAL  ELEMENTS  OF  CIVILIZATION  319 


flame ;  to  keep  up  the  fire  one  must  throw  in  one  piece  of 
wood  after  the  other.  This  applies  also  to  learning ;  it  lacks 
in  vigor,  if  it  is  not  communicated  to  others.  Wisdom  calls 
to  her  votaries  on  the  highways,  in  order  that  the  stream  of 
knowledge  may  overflow  for  many.  For  both  the  culture  of 
the  intellect  and  the  ennobling  of  the  soul  it  is  necessary  that 
man  should  step  out  of  the  narrow  limits  of  self  and  come  into 
touch  with  a  larger  world.  Only  in  devotion  to  his  fellows  is 
man  made  to  realize  his  own  godlike  nature.  In  the  same 
measure  as  he  honors  God’s  image  in  others,  in  foe  as  well  as  in 
friend,  in  the  most  lowly  servant  as  well  in  the  most  noble 
master,  man  increases  his  own  dignity.  This  is  the  funda¬ 
mental  thought  of  morality  as  expressed  in  Job,  especially  in 
the  beautiful  thirty-first  chapter,  and  as  embodied  in  Abra¬ 
ham,1  and  later  reflected  in  various  Talmudic  sayings  about 
the  dignity  of  man.2  Everywhere  man’s  relation  to  society 
becomes  a  test  of  his  own  worth.  The  idea  of  interdepend¬ 
ence  and  reciprocal  duty  among  all  members  of  the  human 
family  forms  the  outstanding  characteristic  of  Jewish  ethics. 
For  it  is  far  more  concerned  in  the  welfare  of  society  than  in 
that  of  the  individual,  and  demands  that  those  endowed  with 
fortune  should  care  for  the  unfortunate,  the  strong  for  the 
weak,  and  those  blessed  with  vision  for  the  blind.  As  God 
Himself  is  Father  to  the  fatherless,  Judge  of  the  widows,  and 
Protector  of  the  oppressed,  so  should  man  be.  “  Works  of 
benevolence  form  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the ‘Torah,” 
points  out  R.  Simlai.3 

7.  It  is  in  the  life  of  the  nation  that  the  individual  first 
realizes  that  he  is  only  a  part  of  a  greater  whole.  The  nation 
to  which  he  belongs  is  the  mother  who  nourishes  him  with  her 
spirit,  teaches  him  to  speak  and  to  think,  and  equips  him  with 
all  the  means  to  take  part  in  the  achievements  and  tasks  of 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Abraham. 

2 1  Abot.  IV,  1 ;  B.  K.  79  b;  Ber.  19  b.  3  Sota  14  a. 


3  20 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


humanity.  In  fact,  the  State,  which  guarantees  to  all  its  citizens 
safety,  order  and  opportunity  under  the  law,  and  which  arranges 
the  relations  of  the  various  groups  and  classes  of  society  that 
they  may  advance  one  another  and  thus  promote  the  welfare 
and  progress  of  all,  is  human  society  in  miniature.  Here  the 
citizen  first  learns  obedience  to  the  law  which  is  binding  upon 
all  alike,  then  respect  and  reverence  for  the  authority  embodied 
in  the  guardians  of  the  law  who  administer  justice  “  which  is 
God’s,”  and  hence  also  loyalty  and  devotion  to  the  whole,  to¬ 
gether  with  reciprocal  obligation  and  helpfulness  among  the 
separate  members  and  classes  of  society.  The  words  of  Jere¬ 
miah  to  his  exiled  brethren,  “Seek  ye  the  peace  of  the  city 
whither  I  have  caused  you  to  be  carried  away  captive,  and  pray 
unto  the  Lord  for  it,  for  in  the  peace  thereof  shall  ye  have 
peace,” 1  became  the  guiding  maxim  of  Jewry  when  torn  from 
its  native  soil.  It  impressed  upon  them,  once  for  all,  the 
deeply  rooted  virtues  of  loyalty  and  love  for  the  country  in 
which  they  dwelt.  To  pray  for  the  welfare  of  the  State  and 
its  ruler,  under  whose  dominion  all  citizens  were  protected, 
and  so  in  modern  times  for  its  legislative  and  administrative 
authorities,  has  become  a  sacred  duty  of  the  Jewish  religious 
community.  To  sacrifice  one’s  life  willingly,  if  need  be,  for 
the  welfare  of  the  country  in  which  he  lived,  was  a  demand 
of  loyalty  which  the  Jew  has  never  disregarded.  “The  law 
of  the  State  is  as  the  law  of  God”2  taught  Samuel  the 
Babylonian,  and  another  sage  of  Babylon  said,  “The  govern¬ 
ment  on  earth  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  image  of  God’s  govern¬ 
ment  in  heaven.”  3 

8.  But,  after  all,  the  community  of  the  State  or  the  nation 
is  too  confined  in  its  cultural  work  by  its  special  interests  and 
particular  tasks  ever  to  reach  the  universal  ideal  of  man,  that 
is,  a  perfected  humanity.  Where  the  interests  of  one  State  or 

1  Jer.  XXIX,  7 ;  comp.  Abot.  Ill,  2. 

2  B.  K.  1 13  a  and  elsewhere. 


3  Ber.  58  a. 


THE  MORAL  ELEMENTS  OF  CIVILIZATION  32 1 


nation  come  into  conflict  with  those  of  another,  far  too  often 
the  result  is  enmity  and  murderous  warfare.  Therefore  there 
must  be  a  higher  power  to  quench  the  brands  of  war  whenever 
they  flare  up,  to  cultivate  every  motive  leading  toward  peace 
and  harmony  among  nations,  to  impel  men  toward  a  higher 
righteousness  and  to  obviate  all  conflict  of  interests,  because 
in  place  of  selfishness  it  implants  in  the  heart  the  self-forgetful¬ 
ness  of  love.  Religion  is  the  power  which  trains  peoples  as  well 
as  individuals  toward  the  conception  of  one  humanity,  in  the 
same  measure  as  it  points  to  the  one  and  only  God,  Ruler  over 
all  the  contending  motives  of  men,  the  Source  and  Shield  of  all 
righteousness,  truth,  and  love,  the  Father  of  mankind  as 
the  only  foundation  upon  which  the  grand  edifice  of  human 
civilization  must  ultimately  rest.  Thus  it  teaches  us  to  re¬ 
gard  the  common  life  and  endeavor  of  peoples  and  societies 
as  one  household  of  divine  goodness.  Every  system  of 
belief,  every  religious  denomination  which  transcends  the 
limits  of  the  national  consciousness  with  a  view  to  the 
broader  conception  of  mankind,  and  binds  the  national  groups 
and  interests  into  a  higher  unity  to  include  and  influence  all 
the  depths  and  heights  of  the  human  spirit,  paves  the  way 
toward  the  attainment  of  the  mighty  goal.  In  the  same  sense 
the  united  efforts  of  the  various  classes  and  societies  or  States 
for  the  common  advance  of  culture,  prosperity,  national  wel¬ 
fare  and  international  commerce,  as  well  as  of  science  and 
art,  tend  unceasingly  toward  that  full  realization  of  the  idea  of 
humanity  which  constitutes  the  brotherhood  of  man. 

9.  Not  yet  has  any  religious  body,  however  great  and  re¬ 
markable  its  accomplishments  may  have  been,  nor  any  of  the 
religious,  scientific,  or  national  organizations,  much  as  they 
have  achieved,  performed  the  sublime  task  which  the  prophets 
of  Israel  foretold  as  the  goal  of  history.  Each  one  has 
drawn  to  itself  only  a  portion  of  mankind,  and  promised  it 
success  or  redemption  and  bliss,  while  the  rest  have  been 


322 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


excluded  and  denied  both  temporal  and  eternal  happiness. 
Each  one  has  singled  out  one  side  of  human  nature  in  order  to 
link  to  it  the  entire  absolute  truth,  but  at  the  same  time  has 
underestimated  or  cast  aside  all  other  sides  of  human  life,  and 
thereby  blocked  the  road  to  complete  truth,  which  can 
never  be  presented  in  final  form,  nor  ever  be  the  exclusive 
possession  of  one  portion  of  humanity.  Judaism,  which  is 
neither  a  religious  nor  a  national  system  solely ,  but  aims  to  be 
a  covenant  with  God  uniting  all  peoples,  lays  claim  to  no 
exclusive  truth,  and  makes  its  appeal  to  no  single  group  of 
mankind.  The  Messianic  hope,  which  aims  to  unite  all  races 
and  classes  of  men  into  a  bond  of  brotherhood,  has  become  an 
impelling  force  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and  both  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  Islam,  in  so  far  as  they  owe  their  existence  to  this 
hope  and  to  the  adoption  of  Jewish  teachings,  constitute  parts 
of  the  history  of  Judaism.  Between  these  world-religions  with 
their  wide  domains  of  civilization  stands  the  little  Jewish 
people  as  a  cosmopolitan  element.  It  points  to  an  ideal 
future,  with  a  humanity  truly  united  in  God,  when,  through 
ceaseless  progress  in  the  pursuit  of  ever  more  perfect  ideals, 
truth,  justice,  and  peace  will  triumph,  —  to  the  realization 
of  the  kingdom  of  God. 


PART  III 


ISRAEL  AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

CHAPTER  XL VIII 
The  Election  of  Israel 

1.  The  central  point  of  Jewish  theology  and  the  key  to  an 
understanding  of  the  nature  of  Judaism  is  the  doctrine,  “God 
chose  Israel  as  His  people.”  The  election  of  Israel  as  the 
chosen  people  of  God,  or,  what  amounts  to  the  same,  as  the 
nation  whose  special  task  and  historic  mission  it  is  to  be  the 
bearer  of  the  most  lofty  truths  of  religion  among  mankind, 
forms  the  basis  and  the  chief  condition  of  revelation.  Before 
God  proclaimed  the  Ten  Words  of  the  Covenant  on  Sinai, 
He  addressed  the  people  through  His  chosen  messenger, 
Moses,  saying  :  “Ye  have  seen  what  I  did  unto  the  Egyptians, 
and  how  I  bore  you  on  eagles’  wings,  and  brought  you  unto 
Myself.  Now  therefore,  if  ye  will  hearken  unto  My  voice, 
indeed,  and  keep  My  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  Mine  own 
treasure  from  among  all  peoples,  for  all  the  earth  is  Mine ; 
and  ye  shall  be  unto  Me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy 
nation.”  1 

2.  The  fact  of  Israel’s  election  by  God  as  His  peculiar 
nation  is  repeated  in  Deuteronomy,  with  the  special  declara¬ 
tion  that  God  had  found  delight  in  them  as  the  smallest  of 
the  peoples,  on  account  of  the  love  and  the  faith  He  had  sworn 
to  the  Patriarchs.2  It  is  accentuated  in  the  Synagogal  liturgy, 

1  Ex.  XIX,  4-5. 

2  Deut.  VII,  6-8;  X,  15;  XIV,  2.  Comp.  Schechter:  Aspects ,  57  ff. 

323 


324 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


especially  in  the  prayer  for  holy  days  which  begins  with  the 
words:  “Thou  hast  chosen  us  from  all  peoples;  Thou  hast 
loved  us  and  found  pleasure  in  us  and  hast  exalted  us  above 
all  tongues ;  Thou  hast  sanctified  us  by  Thy  commandments 
and  brought  us  near  unto  Thy  service,  O  King,  and  hast 
called  us  by  Thy  great  and  holy  name.”  1  Inasmuch  as  the 
election  of  Israel  is  connected  with  the  deliverance  of  the 
people  from  Egypt,  the  whole  relation  of  the  Jewish  nation 
to  its  God  assumes  from  the  outset  an  essentially  different 
character  from  that  of  other  nations  to  their  deities.  The 
God  of  Israel  is  not  inseparably  connected  with  ITis  people 
by  mere  natural  bonds,  as  is  the  case  with  every  other  ancient 
divinity.  He  is  not  a  national  God  in  the  ordinary  sense. 
He  has  chosen  Israel  freely  of  His  own  accord.  “When 
Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and  out  of  Egypt  I  called 
My  son,”  says  God  through  Hosea,2  and  thus  prefers  to  call 
Himself  “thy  God  from  the  land  of  Egypt.”  This  election 
from  love  is  echoed  also  in  Jeremiah,  who  said,  “Israel  is  the 
Lord’s  hallowed  portion,  His  first-fruits  of  the  increase.” 3 
The  moral  relation  between  God  and  Israel  is  most  clearly 
characterized,  however,  by  Amos,  in  the  words:  “You  only 
have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth;  therefore  I 
will  visit  upon  you  all  your  iniquities.” 4  Here  is  stated  in 
explicit  terms  that  the  God  of  history  selected  Israel  as  an 
instrument  for  His  plan  of  salvation,  in  the  expectation  that 
he  would  remain  faithful  to  His  will. 

3.  The  real  purpose  of  the  election  and  mission  of  Israel 
was  announced  by  the  great  prophet  of  the  Exile  when  he 
called  Israel  the  “servant  of  the  Lord,”  who  has  been  formed 
from  his  mother’s  bosom  and  delivered  from  every  other 
bondage,  in  order  that  he  may  declare  the  praise  of  God 
among  the  peoples,  and  be  a  harbinger  of  light  and  a  bond  of 


1  See  Singer’s  Prayerbook,  226  f. 

3  Jer.  II,  3. 


2  Hos.  XI,  1 ;  XII,  10 ;  XIII,  4. 
4  Amos  III,  2. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  ISRAEL 


325 


union  among  the  nations,  the  witness  of  God,  the  proclaimer 
of  His  truth  and  righteousness  throughout  the  world.1  The 
entire  history  of  Israel  as  far  back  as  the  Patriarchs 
was  reconstructed  in  this  light,  and  we  find  the  election 
of  Abraham  also  similarly  described  in  the  Psalms  2  and  in 
the  liturgy.  Indeed,  in  every  morning  prayer  for  the  past 
two  thousand  years  the  Jewish  people  have  offered  thanks 
to  God  for  the  divine  teaching  that  has  been  intrusted 
to  their  care,  and  praised  Him  “who  has  chosen  Israel  in 
love.”  3 

4.  The  belief  in  the  election  of  Israel  rests  on  the  conviction 
that  the  Jewish  people  has  a  certain  superiority  over  other 
peoples  in  being  especially  qualified  to  be  the  messenger  and 
champion  of  religious  truth.  In  one  sense  this  prerogative 
takes  into  account  every  people  which  has  contributed  some¬ 
thing  unique  to  any  department  of  human  power  or  knowledge, 
and  therein  has  served  others  as  pattern  and  guide.  From 
the  broader  standpoint,  all  great  historic  peoples  appear  as 
though  appointed  by  divine  providence  for  their  special  cul¬ 
tural  tasks,  in  which  others  can  at  most  emulate  them  without 
achieving  their  greatness.  Yet  we  cannot  speak  in  quite  the 
same  way  of  the  election  of  the  Greeks  or  Romans  or  of  the 
nations  of  remote  antiquity  for  mastery  in  art  and  science, 
or  for  skill  in  jurisprudence  and  statecraft.  The  fact  is  that 
these  nations  were  never  fully  conscious  that  they  had  a  his¬ 
toric  or  providential  destiny  to  influence  mankind  in  this 
special  direction.  Israel  alone  was  self-conscious,  realizing 
its  task  as  harbinger  and  defender  of  its  religious  truth  as 
soon  as  it  had  entered  into  its  possession.  Its  election,  there¬ 
fore,  does  not  imply  presumption,  but  rather  a  grave  duty 
and  responsibility.  As  the  great  seer  of  the  Captivity  had 
already  declared,  to  be  the  servant  of  the  Lord  is  to  undergo 

1  Isa.  XLI,  8  f. ;  XLII,  6 ;  XLIII,  10 ;  XLIX,  8. 

2  CV,  7  f.,  comp.  Neh.  IX,  7.  3  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  p.  40. 


326 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  destiny  of  suffering,  to  be  “the  man  of  sorrow,’’  from 
whose  bruises  comes  healing  unto  all  mankind.1 

5.  Accordingly  the  election  of  Israel  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  single  divine  act,  concluded  at  one  moment  of  revelation, 
or  even  during  the  Biblical  period.  It  must  instead  be  con¬ 
sidered  a  divine  call  persisting  through  all  ages  and  encom¬ 
passing  all  lands,  a  continuous  activity  of  the  spirit  which  has 
ever  summoned  for  itself  new  heralds  and  heroes  to  testify 
to  truth,  justice,  and  sublime  faith,  with  an  unparalleled 
scorn  for  death,  and  to  work  for  their  dissemination  by  words 
and  deeds  and  by  their  whole  life.  Judaism  differs  from  all 
other  religions  in  that  it  is  neither  the  creation  of  one  great 
moral  teacher  and  preacher  of  truth,  nor  seeks  to  typify  the 
moral  and  spiritual  sublimity  which  it  aims  to  develop  in 
a  single  person,  who  is  then  lifted  up  into  the  realm  of  the 
superhuman.  Judaism  counts  its  prophets,  its  sages,  and  its 
martyrs  by  generations;  it  is  still  demonstrating  its  power 
to  reshape  and  regenerate  religion  as  a  vital  force.  Moreover, 
Judaism  does  not  separate  religion  from  life,  so  as  to  regard 
only  a  segment  of  the  common  life  and  the  national  existence  as 
holy.  The  entire  people,  the  entire  life,  must  bear  the  stamp 
of  holiness  and  be  filled  with  priestly  consecration.  Whether 
this  lofty  aim  can  ever  be  completely  attained  is  a  question  not 
to  be  decided  by  short-sighted  humanity,  but  only  by  God,  the 
Ruler  of  history.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  life  of  the  individual 
as  well  as  that  of  the  people  should  aspire  toward  this  ideal. 

6.  Of  course,  the  election  of  Israel  presupposes  an  inner 
calling,  a  special  capacity  of  soul  and  tendency  of  intellect 
which  fit  it  for  the  divine  task.  The  people  which  has  given 
mankind  its  greatest  prophets  and  psalmists,  its  boldest 
thinkers  and  its  noblest  martyrs,  which  has  brought  to  frui¬ 
tion  the  three  great  world-religions,  the  Church,  the  Mosque, 
and  —  mother  of  them  both  —  the  Synagogue,  must  be  the 

1  Isa.  LII,  3-LIII,  12. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  ISRAEL 


327 


religious  people  par  excellence.  It  must  have  within  itself 
enough  of  the  heavenly  spark  of  truth  and  of  the  impetus 
of  the  religious  genius  as  to  be  able  and  eager,  whenever  and 
wherever  the  opportunity  is  favorable,  to  direct  the  spiritual 
flight  of  humanity  toward  the  highest  and  holiest.  In  fact, 
the  soul  of  the  Jewish  people  reveals  a  peculiar  mingling  of 
characteristics,  a  union  of  contrasts,  which  makes  it  especially 
fit  for  its  providential  mission  in  history.  Together  with  the 
marked  individuality  of  each  person  we  find  a  common  spirit 
highly  sensitive  to  every  encroachment.  Here  there  is  a 
tenacious  adherence  to  what  is  old  and  traditional,  and  there 
an  eager  assimilation  of  what  is  new  and  strange.  On  the 
one  hand,  a  materialistic  self-interest;  on  the  other,  an 
idealism  soaring  to  the  stars.1  The  sages  of  the  Tannaitic 
period  already  remarked  that  Israel  has  been  intrusted  with 
the  law  which  it  is  to  defend  and  to  disseminate,  just  because 
it  is  the  boldest  and  most  obstinate  of  nations.2  On  the  other 
hand,  the  three  special  characteristics  of  the  Jewish  people 
according  to  the  Talmud  are  its  chastity  and  purity  of  life, 
its  benevolence  and  its  active  love  for  humanity.3  A  heathen 
scoffer  calls  Israel  “a  people  of  generous  impulses  which 
promised  at  Sinai  to  do  what  God  would  command,  even 
before  it  had  hearkened  to  the  commandments. ”4  “  Gentle 

and  shy  as  a  dove,  it  is  also  willing  like  the  dove  to  stretch 
out  its  neck  for  the  sacrifice,  for  love  of  its  heavenly  Father,” 
says  the  Haggadist.5  And  yet  R.  Johanan  remarks  that 
Israel,  called  to  be  the  bearer  of  light  to  the  world,  must  be 
pressed  like  the  olive  before  it  will  yield  its  precious  oil.6 
Every  individual  in  Israel  possesses  the  requisite  qualities 
for  a  holy  priest-people,  according  to  a  Midrash  of  the  Tan¬ 
naitic  period,  and  hence  we  read  in  Deuteronomy,  “The  Lord 

1  Meg.  16  a.  2  Beza  25  b.  3  Yeb.  79  a. 

4  Shab.  88  a.  6  Cant.  R.  IV,  2 ;  Tanh.  Tezaveh  1. 

6  Menah.  53  b  with  ref.  to  Jer.  XI,  16. 


328 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


hath  chosen  thee  to  be  His  own  treasure  out  of  all  peoples 
that  are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.”  1 

7.  All  these  and  similar  sayings  disprove  completely  the 

idea  that  the  election  of  Israel  was  an  arbitrary  act  of  God. 

¥ 

It  is  due  rather  to  hereditary  virtues  and  to  tendencies  of 
mind  and  spirit  which  equip  Israel  for  his  calling.  To  this 
must  be  added  the  important  fact  that  God  educated  the 
people  for  its  task  through  the  Law,  which  was  to  make  it 
conscious  of  its  priestly  sanctity  and  keep  it  ever  active  in 
mind  and  heart.  The  election  of  Israel  is  emphasized  in 
Deuteronomy  especially  in  connection  with  the  prohibition 
of  marriage  with  idolaters  and  with  the  prohibition  of  unclean 
animals,  which  also  originated  in  the  priestly  laws.2  The 
underlying  idea  is  that  the  mission  of  Israel  to  battle  for  the 
Most  High  imperatively  demands  separation  from  the  heathen 
peoples,  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  its  priestly  calling  neces¬ 
sitates  an  especial  abstinence.  And  as  has  the  law  in  its 
development  and  realization  for  thousands  of  years,  so  has  also 
God’s  wise  guidance  trained  Israel  in  the  course  of  history 
so  as  to  render  him  at  times  the  unyielding  preserver  and 
defender  and  at  other  times  the  bold  champion  and  protagonist 
of  the  highest  truth  and  justice,  according  as  the  outlook  and 
the  mental  horizon  of  the  period  were  narrow  or  broad. 

8.  It  is  true  that  the  thought  of  Israel’s  calling  and  mission 
in  world-history  first  became  clear  when  its  prophets  and  sages 
attained  a  view  of  great  world-movements  from  the  lofty 
watch-tower  of  the  centuries,  so  that  they  could  take  cogni¬ 
zance  of  the  varying  relations  of  Judaism  to  the  civilized 
peoples  around.  The  summons  of  the  Jewish  people  to  be 
heralds  of  truth  and  workers  for  peace  is  first  mentioned  in 
Isaiah  and  Micah,3  while  only  in  the  great  movement  of  nations 

1  Sifre  to  Deut.  XIV,  2.  2  Deut.  VII,  6 ;  XIV,  2. 

3  Isa.  II,  3;  Micah  IV,  2  —  passages  considered  by  modern  critics  to  be  of 
exilic  origin. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  ISRAEL 


329 


under  Cyrus  did  the  seer  of  the  Exile  recognize  the  peculiar 
mission  of  Israel  in  the  history  of  the  world.  If  in  gloomy 
periods  the  outlook  became  dark,  still  the  hope  for  the  ful¬ 
fillment  of  this  mission  was  never  entirely  lost.  In  fact, 
the  contact  of  the  Jewish  people  with  Greek  culture  after 
Alexander  the  Great  gave  new  power  and  fresh  impetus  to 
the  conception  of  Israel’s  mission,1  as  the  rich  Hellenistic  lit¬ 
erature  and  the  vision  of  Daniel  in  chapter  VII  testify.  In 
fact,  Abraham,  the  ancestor  of  the  Jewish  people,  became  for 
the  earliest  Haggadists  a  wandering  missionary  and  a  great 
preacher  of  the  unity  of  God,  and  his  picture  was  the  pattern 
for  both  Paul  and  Mohammed.2  The  election  of  Israel  is 
clearly  and  unequivocally  expressed  by  Rabbi  Eleazar  ben 
Pedath  in  the  words,  “God  sent  Israel  among  the  heathen 
nations  that  they  may  win  a  rich  harvest  of  proselytes,  for, 
as  God  said  through  Hosea,  ‘I  will  sow  her  unto  Me  in  the 
land,’  so  He  wishes  from  this  seed  to  reap  a  bountiful  and 
world-wide  harvest.”3 

9.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  when  the  historical  viewpoint 
and  the  idea  of  human  progress  were  both  lacking,  the  belief 
in  the  mission  of  Israel  was  confined  to  the  Messianic  hope. 
Both  Jehuda  ha  Levi  and  Maimonides,  however,  regard 
Christianity  and  Islam  as  preparatory  steps  for  the  Messiah, 
who  is  to  unify  the  world  through  the  knowledge  of  God.4 
“The  work  of  the  Messiah  is  the  fruit,  of  which  Israel  will 
be  universally  acknowledged  as  the  root,”  says  the  Jewish 
sage  in  the  Cuzari.  Therefore  he  rightly  accepts  the  election 
of  Israel  as  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  belief.  Modern  times, 
however,  with  their  awakened  historical  sense  and  their  idea 
of  progress,  have  again  placed  in  the  foreground  the  belief 

1  See  Bousset,  1.  c.,  60-99. 

2  Gen.  R.  to  Gen.  XII,  4,  and  see  J.  E.,  art.  Abraham. 

8  Pes.  87  b.  with  ref.  to  Hosea  II,  25. 

4  Cuzari  IV,  23 ;  Maim.  H.  Melakim  XI,  4. 


33° 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


in  the  election  and  mission  of  Israel.  The  founders  of  reform 
Judaism  have  cast  this  ancient  doctrine  in  a  new  form.  On 
the  one  hand,  they  have  reinterpreted  the  Messianic  hope 
in  the  prophetic  spirit,  as  the  realization  of  the  highest  ideals 
of  a  united  humanity.  On  the  other,  they  have  rejected  the 
entire  theory  that  Israel  was  exiled  from  his  ancient  land 
because  of  his  sins,  and  that  he  is  eventually  to  return  there 
and  to  restore  the  sacrificial  cult  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem. 
Therefore  the  whole  view  concerning  Israel’s  future  had  to 
undergo  a  transformation.1  The  historic  mission  of  Israel  as 
priest  of  humanity  and  champion  of  truth  assumed  a  higher 
meaning,  and  his  peculiar  position  in  history  and  in  the  Law 
necessarily  received  a  different  interpretation  from  that  of 
Talmudic  Judaism  or  that  of  the  Church.  As  individuals, 
indeed,  many  Jews  have  taken  part  in  the  achievements  and 
efforts  of  all  civilized  peoples ;  the  Jewish  people  as  such  has 
accomplished  great  things  in  only  one  field,  the  field  of  reli¬ 
gion.  The  following  chapters  will  consider  more  closely 
how  Judaism  has  taken  up  and  carried  out  this  sacred  mission. 

1  See  Geiger:  Zeitschr.  1868,  p.  18  ff. ;  1869,  55  ff. 


CHAPTER  XLIX 


The  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  Mission  of  Israel 

i.  The  hope  of  Judaism  for  the  future  is  comprised  in  the 
phrase,  “the  kingdom  of  God,” — malkuth  shaddai  or  mal- 
kuth  Shamayim ,  —  which  means  the  sovereign  rule  of  God. 
From  ancient  times  the  liturgy  of  the  Synagogue  concludes 
regularly  with  the  solemn  Alenu,  in  which  God  is  addressed 
as  the  “King  of  kings  of  kings”  — king  of  kings  being  the 
Persian  title  for  the  ruler  of  the  whole  Empire  —  and  directly 
after  this  the  hope  is  expressed  that  “we  may  speedily  behold 
the  glory  of  Thy  might,  when  Thou  wilt  remove  the  abomina¬ 
tions  from  the  earth,  and  the  idols  will  be  utterly  cut  off ; 
when  the  world  will  be  perfected  under  the  kingdom  of  the 
Almighty,  and  all  the  children  of  flesh  will  call  upon  Thy  name  ; 
when  Thou  wilt  turn  unto  Thyself  all  the  wicked  of  the  earth. 
Let  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  perceive  and  know  that 
unto  Thee  every  knee  must  bend,  and  every  tongue  give 
homage.  Let  them  all  accept  the  yoke  of  Thy  kingdom, 
and  do  Thou  reign  over  them  speedily,  and  forever  and  ever.” 1 
At  the  close  of  the  Torah  lesson  in  the  house  of  learning  the 
assembly  regularly  recited  the  blessing,  “Praised  be  Thy 
name  !  May  Thy  kingdom  soon  come  !  ”  —  afterwards  known 
as  th eKaddish,2  and  reechoed  in  the  so-called  “Lord’s  Prayer” 
of  the  Church.  The  words  of  the  prophet,  “The  Lord  shall 
be  King  over  all  the  earth ;  in  that  day  shall  the  Lord  be  One, 
and  His  name  One,” 3  voiced  for  all  ages  this  ideal  of  the  future, 
and  thus  gave  a  goal  and  a  purpose  to  the  history  of  the  world 

1 J.  E.,  art.  Alenu;  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  76  f. 

2  J.  E.,  art.  Kaddish.  3  Zech.  XIV,  9. 

33i 


332 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


and  at  the  same  time  centered  it  in  Israel,  the  chosen  people 
of  God. 

2.  The  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  the  One  and  Only 
God  throughout  the  entire  world  constitutes  the  divine  plan 
of  salvation  toward  which,  according  to  Jewish  teaching, 
the  efforts  of  all  the  ages  are  tending.  This  “Kingdom  of 
God”  is  not,  however,  a  kingdom  of  heaven  in  the  world  to 
come,  which  men  are  to  enter  only  after  death,  and  then  only 
if  redeemed  from  sin  by  accepting  the  belief  in  a  supernatural 
Savior  as  their  Messiah,  as  is  taught  by  the  Church.  Judaism 
points  to  God’s  Kingdom  on  earth  as  the  goal  and  hope  cf 
mankind,  to  a  world  in  which  all  men  and  nations  shall  turn 
away  from  idolatry  and  wickedness,  falsehood  and  violence, 
and  become  united  in  their  recognition  of  the  sovereignty 
of  God,  the  Holy  One,  as  proclaimed  by  Israel,  His  servant 
and  herald,  the  Messiah  of  the  nations.  It  is  not  the  hope 
of  bliss  in  a  future  life  (which  is  the  leading  motive  of  Chris¬ 
tianity),  but  the  building  up  of  the  divine  kingdom  of  truth, 
justice,  and  peace  among  men  by  Israel’s  teaching  and  prac¬ 
tice.1  In  this  sense  God  speaks  through  the  mouth  of  the 
prophet,  “I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  of  the  nations,  that 
My  salvation  may  be  unto  the  end  of  the  earth.”2  “All  the 
ends  of  the  earth  shall  see  the  salvation  of  our  God.”  3  “The 
remnant  of  Jacob  shall  be  in  the  midst  of  many  peoples,  as 
dew  from  the  Lord,  as  showers  upon  the  grass.”  4 

3.  Clearly,  the  idea  of  a  world-kingdom  of  God  arose  only 
as  the  result  of  the  gradual  development  of  the  Jewish  God- 
consciousness.  It  was  necessary  at  first  that  the  prophetic 
idea  of  God’s  kingship,  the  theocracy  in  Israel,  should  triumph 
over  the  monarchical  view  and  absorb  it.  The  patriarchal 
life  of  the  shepherd  was  certainly  not  favorable  to  a  monar¬ 
chical  rule.  “I  will  not  rule  over  you,  neither  shall  my  son  rule 

1  See  Schechter :  Aspects ,  89  f.,  93  f. 

3  Isa.  LII,  10. ; 


2  Isa.  XLIX,  6. 
4  Micah  V,  6. 


KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  MISSION  OF  ISRAEL  333 


over  you,  the  Lord  shall  rule  over  you,”  said  Gideon  in  refus¬ 
ing  the  title  of  king  which  the  people  had  offered  him.1  Ac¬ 
cording  to  one  tradition  Samuel  blamed  the  people  for  desiring 
a  king  and  thereby  rejecting  the  divine  kingship.2  “I  give 
thee  a  king  in  Mine  anger,”  says  God  through  Hosea.3  The 
more  the  monarchy,  with  its  exclusively  worldly  and  material¬ 
istic  aims,  came  into  conflict  with  the  demands  of  the  prophets 
and  their  religious  truth,  the  higher  rose  the  prophetic  hope 
for  the  dawning  of  a  day  when  God  alone  would  rule  in  ab¬ 
solute  sovereignty  over  the  entire  world.  Now,  in  the  king¬ 
dom  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  with  its  frequently  changing  dynasties, 
the  old  patriarchal  conception  was  dominant,  while  in  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  which  remained  loyal  to  the  house  of 
David,  the  monarchical  idea  developed.  Isaiah,  living  in 
Jerusalem  and  favorably  disposed  towards  the  monarchy, 
prophesied  that  a  shoot  from  the  house  of  David,  endowed 
with  marvelous  spiritual  powers,  should  come  forth,  occupy¬ 
ing  the  throne  in  the  place  of  God,  and  through  his  victories 
would  plant  righteousness  and  the  knowledge  of  God  every¬ 
where  upon  earth,  and  establish  throughout  the  world  a 
wonderful  reign  of  peace.4  Upon  this  royal  “  shoot  ”  of  David 5 
rested  the  Messianic  hope  during  the  Exile,  and  amidst  the 
disappointments  of  the  time  this  vision  became  all  the  more 
idealized.  In  contrast  to  this  the  great  prophet  of  the  Exile 
announced  the  establishment  of  the  absolute  dominion  of  God 
as  the  true  “King  of  Israel” 6  over  all  the  earth  by  the  nucleus 
of  Israel,  “the  servant  of  God,”  who  would  become  conscious 
of  his  great  historic  mission  in  the  world  and  be  willing 
to  offer  his  very  life  in  its  cause.  In  all  this  the  prophet 
makes  no  reference  to  the  royal  house  of  David,  but  makes 

1  Judg.  VIII,  23.  2 1  Sam.  VIII,  7 ;  XII,  12,  17  f. 

3  Hos.  XIII,  11.  4  Isa.  IX,  5 ;  XI,  r-10. 

B  Isa.  IV,  2;  Jer.  XXIII,  5;  XXXIII,  15;  and  Zech.  Ill,  8;  VI,  12.  Here 
Zerubbabel  is  referred  to. 

6  Isa.  XLI,  21 ;  XLIII,  15 ;  XLIV,  6.  Comp.  XLIII,  22. 


334 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


bold  to  confer  the  title  of  the  “ anointed  of  God”  —  that  is, 
Messiah  —  upon  Cyrus,  the  king  of  Persia,  as  the  one  who 
was  to  usher  in  the  new  era.1  Subsequently  these  two  di¬ 
vergent  hopes  for  the  future  run  parallel  in  the  Psalms 
and  the  liturgy  as  well  as  in  the  apocryphal  and  rabbinic 
literature. 

4.  While  the  Messianic  aspirations  as  such  bore  rather  a 
political  and  national  character  in  Judaism  (as  will  be  ex¬ 
plained  in  Chapter  LIII),  yet  the  religious  hope  for  a  univer¬ 
sal  kingdom  of  God  took  root  even  more  deeply  in  the  heart 
of  the  Jewish  people.  It  created  the  conception  of  Israel’s 
mission  and  also  the  literature  and  activity  of  the  Hellenis¬ 
tic  propaganda,  and  it  gave  a  new  impetus  to  the  making 
of  proselytes  among  the  heathen,  to  which  both  Christianity 
and  Islam  owe  their  existence.  The  words  of  Isaiah,  repeated 
later  by  Habakkuk,  “The  earth  will  be  full  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea,”  2  became  now  an 
article  of  faith.  While  in  earlier  times  the  rule  of  Israel’s 
God,  JHVH,  was  attached  to  Zion,  from  whose  holy  mount 
He  ruled  as  invisible  King,3  later  on  we  find  Zechariah  pro¬ 
claiming  Him  who  was  enthroned  in  heaven  as  having  domin¬ 
ion  over  the  entire  earth,4  and  the  Psalter  summons  all  nations 
to  acknowledge,  adore,  and  extol  Him  as  King  of  the  world.5 
Nay,  at  the  very  time  when  Judah  lay  humbled  to  the  ground, 
the  prophet  exclaimed,  “Who  would  not  fear  Thee,  O  King 
of  the  nations  ?  for  it  befitteth  Thee ;  forasmuch  as  among 
all  the  wise  men  of  the  nations,  and  in  all  their  royalty  there 
is  none  like  unto  Thee.”6  Israel’s  great  hope  for  the  future 
is  expressed  most  completely  and  in  most  sublime  language 
in  the  New  Year  liturgy:  “0  Lord  our  God,  impose  Thine 

1  Isa.  XLV,  1.  2  Isa.  XI,  9;  Hab.  II,  14. 

3  Isa.  VI,  5;  XXIV,  23.  Comp.  Jer.  XL VI,  18;  XL VIII,  15. 

4  Zech.  XIV,  9 ;  Mai.  I,  14.  5  Ps.  XXII,  29 ;  XCIII,  1 ;  XCV,  99. 

6  Jer.  X,  7.  This  chapter  is  post-exilic;  comp.  Jer.  XLVI,  18;  XLVIII, 

15  and  I  Chron.  XXIX,  n. 


KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  MISSION  OF  ISRAEL  335 


awe  upon  all  Thy  works,  and  let  Thy  dread  be  upon  all  that 
Thou  hast  created,  that  they  may  all  form  one  single  band  to 
do  Thy  will  with  a  perfect  heart.  .  .  .  Our  God  and  God  of 
our  fathers,  reveal  Thyself  in  Thy  splendor  as  King  over  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  world,  that  every  handiwork  of  Thine 
may  know  that  Thou  hast  made  it,  and  every  creature  may 
acknowledge  that  Thou  hast  created  it,  and  whatsoever  hath 
breath  in  its  nostrils  may  say :  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  is  King, 
and  His  dominion  ruleth  over  all.”  1 

5.  In  the  earlier  period,  then,  the  rule  of  JHVH  seems  to 
have  been  confined  to  Israel  as  the  people  of  His  covenant. 
During  the  Second  Temple  Jerusalem  was  called  the  “city 
of  the  great  King”  2  and  the  constitution  was  considered  by 
Josephus  to  have  been  a  theocracy,  that  is,  a  government  by 
God.3  Indeed,  the  entire  Mosaic  code  has  as  its  main  purpose 
to  make  Israel  a  “kingdom  of  priests,”  over  which  JHVH, 
the  God  of  the  covenant,  was  alone  to  rule  as  King.  The 
chief  object  of  the  strict  nationalists,  in  opposition  to  the 
cosmopolitanism  of  the  Hellenists,  was  that  this  government 
of  God,  in  its  intimate  association  with  the  Holy  Land  and 
the  Holy  People,  should  be  maintained  unchanged  for  all  the 
future.  Thus  the  book  of  Daniel  predicts  the  speedy  downfall 
of  the  fourth  world-kingdom  and  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  through  Israel,  “the  people  of  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High;  their  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom.”4 
Naturally,  such  a  purely  nationalistic  conception  of  the  ruler- 
ship  of  God  does  not  admit  the  thought  of  a  mission  or  its 
corollary,  the  conversion  of  the  heathen.5  These  appear 
among  the  liberal  school  of  Hillel  in  their  opposition  to  the 
more  rigorous  Shammaites  and  the  party  of  the  Zealots.6 
It  is,  therefore,  quite  consistent  that  the  modern  nationalists 
should  again  dispute  the  mission  of  Israel. 

1  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  239.  2  Ps.  XL VIII,  3.  3  Coni.  Apion.  II,  16,  7. 

4  Dan.  VII,  27.  5  See  J.  E.,  art.  Zealots.  6  Shab.  31  a. 


336 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


6.  As  soon  as  Jewish  monotheism  had  once  been  con¬ 
ceived  by  the  Jewish  mind  as  the  universal  truth,  the  idea  of 
the  mission  of  Israel  as  a  bearer  of  light  and  a  witness  of 
God  for  the  nations,  as  enunciated  by  Deutero-Isaiah,  be¬ 
came  ever  more  firmly  established.  Many  Psalms  exhort  the 
people  to  make  known  the  wondrous  doings  of  God  among 
the  nations,  so  that  the  heathen  world  might  at  last  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  One  and  Only  God.1  Nay,  Israel  is  even  called 
God’s  anointed  and  prophet,2  and  in  one  Psalm  we  find  Zion, 
the  city  of  God,  elevated  to  be  the  religious  metropolis  of  the 
world.3  The  book  of  Jonah  is  simply  a  refutation  of  the 
narrow  nationalistic  conception  of  Judaism ;  it  holds  forth 
the  hope  of  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  to  the  true  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God.  In  the  same  spirit  Ruth  the  Moabitess  became 
the  type  of  the  heathen  who  are  eager  to  “take  refuge  under 
the  wings  of  God’s  majesty.”  4  The  author  of  the  book  of 
Job  no  longer  knows  of  a  national  God;  to  him  God  is  the 
highest  ideal  of  morality  as  it  lives  and  grows  in  the  human 
heart.  The  wisdom  literature  also  teaches  a  God  of  humanity. 
Under  His  wings  Shem  and  Japheth,  the  teaching  of  the  Jew 
and  the  wisdom  of  the  Greek,  can  join  hands ;  the  religious 
truth  of  the  one  and  the  philosophic  truth  of  the  other  may 
harmoniously  blend. 

7.  Thus  a  new  impulse  was  given  to  Jewish  proselytism 
in  Alexandria,  and  the  earlier  history  of  Israel,  especially  the 
pre-Israelite  epoch  with  its  simple  human  types,  was  read 
in  a  new  light.  Enoch5  and  Noah 6  became  preachers  of  peni¬ 
tence,  heralds  of  the  pure  monotheism  from  which  the  heathen 
world  had  departed.  Abraham  especially,  the  progenitor 
of  Israel,  was  looked  upon  as  a  prototype  of  the  wandering 

JPs.  XXII,  28;  LXVII,  3;  LXXXVI,  10;  CXVII,  1. 

2  Ps.  CV,  15.  3  Ps.  LXXXVII,  5.  See  Commentaries  and  LXX. 

4  Ruth  II,  12.  Comp.  Lev.  R.  II,  3. 

B  See  both  Enoch  books  and  B.  Sira  XLIV,  16. 

6  Sibyll.  I,  128-170;  Sanh.  108  a. 


KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  MISSION  OF  ISRAEL  337 


missionary  people,  converting  the  heathen.1  Wherever  he 
journeyed,  his  teaching  and  his  example  of  true  benevolence 
won  souls  for  the  Lord  proclaimed  by  him  as  the  “God  of 
the  heaven  and  the  earth.”  2  In  this  sense  of  missionary  ac¬ 
tivity  were  now  interpreted  the  words,  “Be  thou  a  blessing  .  .  . 
and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.”3 
This  was  no  longer  understood  in  the  original  sense,  that 
Abraham  by  his  prosperity  should  be  an  example  of  a  blessed 
man,  to  be  pointed  out  in  blessing  others ;  the  words  were 
given  the  higher  meaning  that  Abraham  with  his  descendants 
should  become  a  source  of  blessing  for  mankind  through  his 
teachings  and  his  conduct,  so  that  all  the  families  of  men 
should  attain  blessing  and  salvation  by  following  his  doctrine 
and  example.  Thus  the  idea  of  the  Jewish  mission  was  con¬ 
nected  with  Abraham,  the  “father  of  a  multitude  of  nations,”  4 
and  this  was  later  on  adopted  by  Paul  and  Mohammed  in 
establishing  the  Church  and  the  Mosque. 

8.  In  contradistinction,  then,  to  the  political  concept  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  which  Ezekiel  still  hoped  to  see  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  exercise  of  external  power,5  the  idea  assumed 
now  a  purely  spiritual  meaning.  This  kingdom  of  God  is 
accepted  by  the  pious  Jew  every  morning  through  his  con¬ 
fession  of  the  divine  Unity  in  the  Shema.  Abraham  had 
anticipated  this,  say  the  rabbis,  when  he  swore  by  the  God 
of  heaven  and  earth,  and  so  also  had  Israel  in  accepting  the 
Torah  at  Sinai  and  at  the  Red  Sea.6  In  fact,  the  kingdom  of 
God  began,  we  are  told,  with  the  first  man,  since,  when  he 
adored  God  freely  as  King  of  the  world,  every  living  creature 
acknowledged  Him  also.  But  only  when  Israel  as  a  people 
proclaimed  God’s  dominion  at  the  Red  Sea,  was  the  throne 

1  Gen.  R.  XXXIX,  21. 

2  Sifre  Deut.  313,  with  ref.  to  Gen.  XXIV,  3. 

3  See  Dillmann’s  Comm,  to  Gen.  XII,  2;  XXII,  18;  and  Kuenen:  The 
Prophets  and  Prophecy ,  373,  457. 

4  Gen.  XVIL  5.  6  Ezek.  XX,  33.  6  Sifre,  1.  c. 


338 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  God  and  His  kingdom  on  earth  established  for  eternity.1 
And  when  Ezekiel  says:  “With  a  mighty  hand  will  I  be 
King  over  you,”  they  explain  this  to  mean  that  the  people 
chosen  as  the  servant  of  God  will  be  continually  constrained 
anew  by  the  prophets  to  recognize  His  kingdom.2  Yea,  the 
closing  words  of  the  Song  at  the  Red  Sea,  “The  Lord  shall 
reign  for  ever  and  ever  ”  were  taken  to  imply  that  all  the 
nations  would  in  the  end  recognize  only  Israel’s  One  God  as 
King  of  the  world.3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  rabbinical  view 
is  that  every  proselyte,  in  “taking  upon  himself  the  yoke 
of  the  sovereignty  of  God,”  enters  that  divine  Kingdom 
which  at  the  end  of  time  will  embrace  all  men  and  nations d 
In  the  book  of  Tobit  and  the  Sibylline  Oracles  also  we  find 
this  universalistic  conception  of  the  Messianic  age  expressed.5 

9.  Accordingly,  proselytism  found  open  and  solemn  recog¬ 
nition  both  before  and  after  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  as 
we  see  in  the  Psalms,  — -  especially  those  which  speak  of 
proselytes  in  the  term,  “they  that  fear  the  Lord,”  6  and  also 
in  the  ancient  synagogal  liturgy,  where  the  “proselytes  of 
righteousness”  are  especially  mentioned.7  The  school  of 
Hillel  followed  precisely  this  course.  Matters  changed, 
however,  under  the  Roman  dominion,  which  was  contrasted 
to  the  dominion  of  God  especially  from  the  time  of  Herod, 
when  the  belief  became  current  that  “only  when  the  one  is 
destroyed,  will  the  other  arise.”  8  Particularly  after  the 
Christian  Church  had  become  identified  with  Rome,  all  mis¬ 
sionary  endeavors  by  the  Jews  were  considered  dangerous 
and  were  therefore  discouraged  as  much  as  possible.  In  their 

1  P.  D.  R.  El.  XI;  Mek.  Yithro  6;  Lev.  R.  II,  4. 

2  Sifra  Behukkothai  VIII  with  ref.  to  Ezek.  XX,  33 ;  Sanh.  105  a. 

3  Mek.  Beshallah  X,  p.  52.  4  Tanh.  Lek  leka  6. 

B  Tobit  XIII,  i-ii  ;  Sibyll.  Ill,  47,  76  b. 

6  Ps.  CXVII ;  CXVIII,  4.  See  chapter  LVI. 

7  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  48. 

8  Mek.  Amalek  at  close ;  Cant.  R.  II,  28 ;  IV  Ezra  VI,  9-10. 


KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  MISSION  OF  ISRAEL  339 


place  arose  the  hope  for  a  miraculous  intervention  of  God. 
In  Hellenistic  circles  the  Messiah  was  believed  to  be  the  future 
founder  of  the  kingdom  of  God,1  which  assumed  more  and 
more  of  an  other-worldly  nature,  such  as  the  Church  developed 
for  it  later  on. 

10.  The  more  the  harsh  oppression  of  the  times  forced  the 
Jew  to  isolate  himself  and  to  spend  his  life  in  studying  and 
practicing  the  law,  —  which  was  tantamount  to  “  placing 
himself  under  the  kingdom  of  God,”  2  the  more  he  lost  sight 
of  his  sublime  mission  for  the  world  at  large.  Only  individual 
thinkers,  such  as  Jehuda  ha  Levi  and  Maimonides,  kept  a 
vision  of  the  world-mission  of  Israel,  when  they  called  Jesus 
and  Mohammed,  as  founders  of  Christianity  and  Islam,  mes¬ 
sengers  of  God  to  the  idolatrous  nations,  divinely  appointed 
to  bring  them  nearer  to  Israel’s  truth,3  or  when  they  pointed 
forward  to  the  time  when  all  peoples  will  recognize  in  the 
truth  their  common  mother  and  in  God  the  Father  of  all 
mankind.4  A  most  instructive  Midrash  on  Zechariah  IX,  9 
gives  the  keynote  of  this  belief.  “At  that  time  God  as  the 
King  of  Zion  will  speak  to  the  righteous  of  all  times,  and  say 
to  them,  4  Dear  as  the  words  of  My  teaching  are  to  Me,  yet 
have  ye  erred  in  that  ye  have  followed  only  My  Torah,  and 
have  not  waited  for  My  world-kingdom.  I  swear  to  you  that 
I  shall  remember  for  good  him  who  has  waited  for  My  kingdom, 
as  it  is  said,  Wait  ye  for  Me  until  the  day  that  I  rise  up  as  a 
witness.’”  5 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  owing  to  the  sad  consequences 
of  the  missionary  endeavors  of  the  Church  that  the  idea  of 
the  mission  of  Judaism  was  given  a  different  direction.  Not 
conversion,  but  conviction  by  teaching  and  example,  is  the 

1  B.  Wisdom  V,  16;  Sibyll.  Ill,  76  b. 

2 Sifra  Kedoshim  at  close;  Sifre  Deut.  323. 

3  Cuzari  IV,  23 ;  Maim.  II.  Melakim  XI,  4. 

4  Maim. :  Commentary  to  Eduyoth  at  close. 

5  Pes.  R.  XXXIV,  p.  158  ref.  to  Zeph.  Ill,  8.  See  Friedman’s  note. 


340 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


historic  task  of  Judaism,  whose  maxim  is  expressed  in  the 
verse  of  Zechariah,  “Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  My 
spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  1  It  is  not  the  creed,  but 
the  deed,  which  tells.  Not  the  confession,  but  conduct, 
with  the  moral  principles  which  govern  it,  counts.  Such  a 
view  is  implied  in  the  well-known  teaching  of  Joshua  ben 
Hananiah,  “The  righteous  of  all  nations  will  have  a  share 
in  the  world  of  eternal  bliss.”  2  Judaism  does  not  deny 
salvation  to  those  professing  other  religions,  which  would 
tend  to  undermine  the  foundation  of  their  spiritual  life.  Stand¬ 
ing  upon  the  high  watchtower  of  time,  it  rather  strives  ever 
to  clarify  and  strengthen  the  universal  longing  for  truth 
and  righteousness  which  lies  at  the  heart  of  all  religion,  and 
is  thus  to  become  a  bond  of  union,  an  all-illuminating  light 
for  the  world.  To  quote  the  beautiful  words  of  Leopold 
Stein  in  his  Schrift  des  Lebens:z  “Judaism,  wdiile  recognizing 
the  historic  justification  of  all  systems  of  thought  and  faith, 
does  not  cherish  the  ambition  to  become  the  Church  Universal 
in  the  usual  sense  of  the  term,  but  aims  rather  to  be  the  focus, 
or  mirror,  of  religious  unity  for  all  the  rest.  ‘The  people 
from  of  old,’  as  the  prophet  called  them,  are  to  accompany 
mankind  in  its  progress  through  the  ages  and  the  continents, 
until  it  reaches  the  goal  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  the 
‘new  heaven  and  new  earth’  of  the  prophetic  vision.”4  The 
thought  of  the  Jewish  mission  is  most  adequately  expressed 
in  the  Neilah  service  of  the  Union  Prayer  Book,  based  upon 
the  Einhorn  Prayerbook,  which  reads  as  follows:5  “Endow 
us,  our  Guardian,  with  strength  and  patience  for  our  holy  mis¬ 
sion.  Grant  that  all  the  children  of  Thy  people  may  recognize 
the  goal  of  our  changeful  career,  so  that  they  may  exemplify 
by  their  zeal  and  love  for  mankind  the  truth  of  Israel’s  watch¬ 
word  :  One  humanity  on  earth,  even  as  there  is  but  One  God 

1  Zech.  IV,  6.  2Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2.  3  P.  374-378. 

4  Isa.  LXVT,  22.  B  Part  II,  p.  332. 


KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  MISSION  OF  ISRAEL  341 


in  heaven.  Enlighten  all  that  call  themselves  by  Thy  name 
with  the  knowledge  that  the  sanctuary  of  wood  and  stone, 
which  erst  crowned  Zion’s  hill,  was  but  a  gate  through  which 
Israel  should  step  out  into  the  world,  to  reconcile  all  mankind 
unto  Thee !” 


CHAPTER  L 


The  Priest-people  and  its  Law  of  Holiness 

i.  The  checkered,  stormy,  and  yet  triumphant  march  of 
the  Jewish  people  through  the  ages  remains  the  great  enigma 
of  history  for  all  those  who  do  not  believe  in  a  divine  plan  of 
salvation  to  be  consummated  through  Israel.  The  idea  of 
Israel’s  mission  alone  throws  light  on  its  law  and  its  destiny. 
Even  before  God  had  revealed  to  the  people  at  Mt.  Sinai 
the  Ten  Commandments,  the  foundation  of  all  religion  and 
morality,  and  there  concluded  with  them  a  covenant  for  all 
time,  He  spoke:  “Ye  shall  be  unto  Me  a  kingdom  of  priests 
and  a  holy  nation,”  thus  consecrating  them  to  be  a  priest- 
people  among  the  nations,  and  enjoining  them  to  a  life  of 
especial  holiness.  Possessing  as  a  heritage  from  the  Patriarchs 
the  germ  of  a  higher  religious  consciousness,  in  distinction 
from  all  other  peoples,  they  were  to  make  the  cultivation, 
development,  and  promotion  of  the  highest  religious  truth 
their  life-task,  and  thus  to  become  the  people  of  God.  At 
first  they  were  to  establish  in  the  Holy  Land  a  theocratic 
government,  a  State  in  which  God  alone  was  the  Ruler,  while 
they  lived  in  priestly  isolation  from  all  the  nations  around. 
Thus  they  prepared  themselves  for  the  time  when,  scattered 
over  all  the  earth,  they  might  again  work  as  the  priest-people 
through  the  ages  for  the  upbuilding  of  the  universal  kingdom 
of  God.  This  was  Israel’s  destiny  from  the  very  first,  as  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  great  seer  of  the  Exile  when  he  beheld  Israel 
wandering  forth  among  the  nations,  “Ye  shall  be  named  the 

342 


THE  PRIEST-PEOPLE  AND  ITS  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  343 


priests  of  the  Lord ;  men  shall  call  you  the  ministers  of  our 
God.”  1 

2.  Among  all  religions  the  priest  is  considered  especially 
holy  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  man,  and  in  his  appear¬ 
ance  as  well  as  in  his  mode  of  life  he  must  observe  special 
forms  of  purity  and  holiness.  He  alone  may  approach  the 
Godhead,  ascertain  its  will,  and  administer  the  sacrificial  cult 
in  the  sanctuary.  He  must  represent  the  Divinity  in  its 
relation  to  the  people,  embody  it  in  his  outward  life,  enjoy 
nothing  which  it  abhors,  and  touch  nothing  which  could  render 
him  impure.  These  priestly  rules  exist  among  all  the  nations 
of  antiquity  in  striking  similarity,  and  indicate  a  common 
origin  in  the  prehistoric  period,  during  which  the  entire  cult 
developed  through  a  priestly  caste,  beginning  with  simple, 
primitive  conceptions  and  transmitted  in  ever  more  elaborate 
form  from  father  to  son.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the 
priests  of  the  original  Hebrew  race,  which  migrated  from 
Babylonia,  retained  the  ancient  customs  and  rules.  They 
must  also  have  adopted  many  other  things  from  neighboring 
peoples.  During  the  entire  period  of  the  first  temple,  the 
priests  —  despite  all  prophetic  warnings  —  preferred  the 
heathen  cult  with  its  vainglorious  pomp  to  the  simple  worship 
of  the  patriarchal  times.  As  everywhere  else,  the  priesthood 
of  Israel,  and  later  of  Judasa  as  well,  thought  only  of  its  own 
interests,  of  the  retention  of  its  ancient  prerogatives,  unmind¬ 
ful  of  the  higher  calling  to  which  it  had  been  chosen,  to  serve 
the  God  of  truth  and  justice,  to  exemplify  true  holiness, 
to  stand  for  moral  rather  than  ceremonial  purity.  Yet  the 
sacerdotal  institutions  were  indispensable  so  long  as  the 
people  required  a  sanctuary  where  the  Deity  should  dwell, 
and  where  the  sacrificial  cult  should  be  administered.  Every 
trespass  by  a  layman  on  the  sanctuary  reserved  for  the  priests 
was  considered  sacrilege  and  called  for  divine  punishment. 

1  Isa.  LXI,  6. 


344 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


It  was  thus  necessary  to  deepen  the  popular  notion  of  holiness 
and  of  the  reverence  due  the  sanctuary,  before  these  could  be 
elevated  into  the  realm  of  spirituality  and  morality.  The 
priesthood  had  to  be  won  for  the  service  of  the  loftier  religious 
ideas,  so  that  it  might  gradually  educate  the  people  in  general 
for  its  sublime  priestly  mission.  This  conception  underlies 
both  the  Mosaic  law  and  its  rabbinical  interpretation. 

3.  Through  Biblical  and  post-Biblical  literature  and  his¬ 
tory  there  runs  a  twofold  tendency,  one  anti-sacerdotal,  — • 
emanating  from  the  prophets  and  later  the  Hasideans  or 
Pharisees,  —  the  other  a  mediating  tendency,  favorable  to 
the  priesthood.  The  ritualistic  piety  of  the  priests  was 
bitterly  assailed  by  the  prophets  as  being  subversive  of  all 
morality,  and  later  on  the  Sadducean  hierarchy  also  con¬ 
stituted  a  threat  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  welfare  of  the 
people.  Before  even  the  revelation  at  Sinai  was  to  take 
place,  we  read  that  warning  was  given  to  the  priests  “not 
to  break  through”  and  stand  above  the  people.1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  law  demands  of  the  Aaronites  a 
peculiar  degree  of  holiness,  since  “they  offer  the  bread  of  their 
God  upon  the  altar.”  2  Their  blood  must  be  kept  pure  by 
the  avoidance  of  improper  marriages.  Everything  unclean 
or  polluting  must  be  kept  far  from  them.3  The  law,  follow¬ 
ing  a  tradition  which  probably  arose  in  ancient  Babylon, 
prescribed  minutely  their  mode  of  admission  into  the  divine 
service,  their  vestments  and  their  conditions  of  life,  the  ritual 
of  sacrifice  and  of  purity ;  and  every  violation  of  these  laws, 
every  trespass  by  a  layman,  was  declared  to  be  punishable 
with  death.4  The  sanctuary  contains  no  room  for  the  nation 
of  priests ;  no  layman  durst  venture  to  cross  its  threshold. 
Even  in  the  legal  system  of  the  rabbis  the  ancient  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  priesthood,  dating  from  the  time  when  they 


1  Ex.  XIX,  22  f. 

3  Lev.  VIII,  2,  8. 


2  Lev.  XXI,  6;  XXII,  2. 
4  Num.  XVIII,  7. 


THE  PRIEST-PEOPLE  AND  ITS  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  345 


possessed  no  property,  remained  inviolate,  and  their  pre¬ 
cedence  in  everything  was  undisputed.1 

The  glaring  contrast  between  the  idea  of  a  universal  priest¬ 
hood  of  the  people  and  the  institution  of  the  Aaronites  is 
explained  by  a  deeper  insight  into  history.  The  success  of 
the  reformation  under  Josiah  on  the  basis  of  the  Deuteronomic 
code  rested  in  the  last  analysis  on  the  fact  that  the  priests 
of  the  house  of  Zadok  at  Jerusalem  were  placed  in  the  service 
of  the  higher  prophetic  teaching  by  being  rendered  the  guard¬ 
ians,  executors,  and  later,  in  conjunction  with  the  Levites, 
the  teachers  of  the  Law,  as  it  was  presented  in  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  soon  afterward  completed.  The  priesthood, 
deprived  of  everything  that  might  remind  one  of  the  former 
idolatry  and  heathenish  practices,  was,  in  its  purer  and  holier 
character,  to  lead  the  priest-people  to  true  moral  holiness 
through  its  connection  with  the  sanctuary  and  its  ancient 
cult.  Still  the  impulse  for  the  moral  rebirth  of  the  nation, 
for  the  establishment  of  a  priest-people,  did  not  emanate 
from  the  Temple  priesthood,  nor  even  from  the  sacred  soil  of 
Palestine ;  but  from  the  Synagogue,  which  began  in  the  Exile, 
under  the  influence  of  the  prophetic  word  and  the  Levitical 
song,  in  the  form  of  public  worship  by  the  congregation  of 
the  pious.  Here  arose  a  generation  of  godly  men,  a  class  of 
singularly  devout  ones,  living  in  priestly  holiness,  who  conse¬ 
crated  their  lives  to  the  practice  of  the  law,  and  whom  the 
exile  seer  had  designated  as  the  true  Israel,  the  servant  of  the 
Lord,  and  these  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  renewed  Israel. 

4.  That  which  the  prophet  Ezekiel  had  attempted  in  his 
proposed  constitution  2  was  accomplished  in  a  far  more  thor¬ 
ough  manner  by  the  Holiness  Code,  which  emanated  from 
his  school  and  became  the  central  portion  of  the  Mosaic 
books,  and  by  the  so-called  Priestly  Code,  which  followed 
later.  The  object  was  to  bring  about  the  sanctification  of 
1  M.  K.  28  b.  2  Ezek.  XL-XLVIII. 


34^ 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  entire  people  upon  the  holy  soil  of  the  national  land, 
through  institutions  embodying  the  ideal  of  the  holiness  of 
God  in  the  life  and  cult  of  the  people.  Circumcision,  idealized 
by  the  prophetic  author  of  Deuteronomy,1  was  to  be  made  the 
sign  of  the  covenant  to  mark  as  holy  the  progeny  of  Abraham ; 2 
strict  laws  of  marriage  were  to  put  an  end  to  all  heathenish 
unchastity;  the  Sabbath  rest  was  to  consecrate  the  labors 
of  the  week,  the  Sabbatical  month  and  year  the  produce  of 
the  soil.3  The  prohibition  of  unclean  foods,  heretofore  re¬ 
served,  as  among  other  nations,  for  the  priests  and  other  con¬ 
secrated  persons,  was  now  applied  to  the  whole  community 
in  order  that  Israel  should  learn  “to  set  itself  apart  from  all 
other  nations  as  a  holy  people.’’ 4  Even  their  apparel  was  to 
proclaim  the  priestly  holiness  of  the  people  by  a  blue  fringe 
at  the  border  of  the  garments.5 

Whereas  from  the  time  of  Ezra  to  Simon  the  Just  priestly 
rulers  endeavored  to  promote  the  work  of  educating  the 
people  for  holiness,  the  pious  men  from  among  the  people 
made  still  greater  efforts  to  assert  the  claim  of  holiness  for 
the  entire  Jewish  people  as  a  priest-nation.6  The  repasts 
of  these  pious  fellowships  should  be  in  no  way  inferior  in 
sanctity  to  those  of  the  priests  in  the  Temple.  New  cere¬ 
monies  of  sanctification  were  to  open  and  close  the  Sabbaths 
and  festivals.  Symbols  of  priestly  consecration  should  adorn 
forehead  and  arm  in  the  form  of  the  phylacteries  ( tefillin ), 
and  should  be  placed  at  the  entrance  of  every  house  in  the 
so-called  mezuzzah.  “God  has  given  unto  all  an  heritage  (the 
Torah),  the  kingdom,  the  priesthood,  and  the  sanctuary  ”  7  — 
this  became  the  leitmotif  for  the  Pharisaic  school,  who  con¬ 
stantly  enlarged  the  domain  of  piety  so  that  it  should  include 

1  Deut.  X,  16.  Comp.  Jer.  IX,  24. 

2  Gen.  XVII,  9.  3  Lev.  XXV,  1-24. 

4  Deut.  XIV,  2-1 1 ;  Lev.  XI.  Comp.  Ezek.  XLIV,  31,  and  Judg.  XIII,  4. 

5  Num.  XV,  40.  6  See  J.  E.,  art.  Pharisees.  7 II  Macc.  II,  17. 


THE  PRIEST-PEOPLE  AND  ITS  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  347 


the  whole  of  life.  Whoever  did  not  belong  to  this  circle  of 
the  pious  was  regarded  with  scorn  as  one  of  the  lower  class 
{am  ha-aretz). 

5.  The  chief  effort  of  the  pious,  the  founders  of  the  Judaism 
of  the  Synagogue,  was  to  keep  the  Jewish  people  from  the  de¬ 
moralizing  influences  of  pagan  nature- worship,  represented 
first  by  Semitic  and  later  by  Greek  culture.  The  leaders  of 
the  Pharisees  “built  a  fence  about  the  law”  1  extending  the 
prohibition  of  mingling  with  the  heathen  nations  so  as  also 
to  prohibit  eating  with  them  and  participating  in  their  feasts 
and  social  gatherings,  —  not  for  the  preservation  of  the  Jewish 
race  merely,  as  Christian  theologians  maintain,  but  for  the 
sake  of  keeping  its  inner  life  intact  and  pure.2  “God  sur¬ 
rounded  us  with  brazen  walls,  hedged  us  in  with  laws  of  purity 
in  regard  to  food  and  drink  and  physical  contact,  yea,  even 
to  that  which  we  see  and  hear,  in  order  that  we  should  be  pure 
in  body  and  soul,  free  from  absurd  beliefs,  not  polluted  by 
contact  with  others  or  through  association  with  the  wicked ; 
for  most  of  the  peoples  defile  themselves  with  their  sexual 
practices,  and  whole  lands  pride  themselves  upon  it.  But 
we  hold  ourselves  aloof  from  all  this”  —  so  spoke  Eleazar 
the  priest  to  King  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  according  to  the 
Letter  of  Aristeas,  thus  giving  expression  to  the  sentiment 
most  deeply  rooted  in  the  souls  of  the  pious  of  that  period.3 
They  strove  to  build  up  a  nation  of  whom  the  Tannaim 
could  say,  “Whoever  possesses  no  sense  of  shame  and  chastity, 
of  him  it  is  certain  that  his  ancestors  did  not  stand  at  Sinai.”  4 

Naturally  enough,  the  Greek  and  Roman  people  took 
offense  at  this  aloofness  and  separation  from  every  contact 
with  the  outer  world,  and  explained  it  as  due  to  a  spirit  of 
hostility  to  mankind.  Even  up  to  the  present  it  has  been  the 
lot  of  Jewry  and  Judaism  to  be  misunderstood  by  the  world 

2  See  Perles :  Bousset,  68,  89. 

4  Ned.  20  a. 


1  Aboth.  I,  1. 

3  Aristeas  139-152. 


34§ 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


at  large,  to  be  the  object  of  either  its  hate  or  its  pity.  The 
world  disregards  the  magnificence  of  the  plan  by  which  an 
entire  people  were  to  be  reared  as  a  priest-nation,  as  citizens 
of  a  kingdom  of  God,  among  whom,  in  the  course  of  centuries, 
the  seed  of  prophetic  truth  was  to  germinate  and  sprout  forth 
for  the  salvation  of  humanity.  If,  in  complete  contrast  to 
heathen  immorality,  the  Jew  in  his  fife,  his  thinking,  and  his 
will  was  governed  by  the  strictest  moral  discipline;  if,  in 
spite  of  the  most  cruel  persecutions  and  the  most  insidious 
temptations,  the  Jewish  people  remained  steadfast  to  its 
pure  belief  in  God  and  its  traditional  standards  of  chastity, 
exhibiting  a  loyalty  which  amazed  the  nations  and  the  reli¬ 
gious  sects  about,  but  was  neither  understood  nor  followed 
by  them,  this  was  mainly  due  to  the  hallowing  influences 
of  the  priestly  laws.  They  steeled  the  people  for  the  ful¬ 
fillment  of  their  duty  and  shielded  them  against  all  hostile 
powers  both  within  and  without.  The  very  burden  of  the 
law,  so  bitterly  denounced  by  Christianity  since  the  time 
of  Paul,  lent  Judaism  its  dignity  at  all  times,  protecting  it 
from  the  assaults  of  the  tempter;  and  that  which  seemed  to 
the  outsider  a  heavy  load  was  to  the  Jew  a  source  of  pride 
in  the  consciousness  of  his  divine  election.1 

6.  But  most  significant  in  the  character  and  development 
of  Judaism  is  the  fact  that  all  the  leading  ideas  and  motives 
which  emanated  from  the  priesthood  of  the  Jewish  people 
were  concentrated  in  one  single  focus,  the  hallowing  of  the  name 
of  God.  Two  terms  expressed  this  idea  in  both  a  negative 
and  a  positive  form,  the  warning  against  “  Hillul  ha  Shem” 
—  profanation  of  the  name  of  God  —  and  the  duty  of  “  Kid- 
dush  ha  Shem”  —  sanctification  of  God’s  name.  These 
exerted  a  marvelous  power  in  curbing  the  passions  and  self- 
indulgence  of  the  Jew  and  in  spurring  him  on  to  the  greatest 

1  See  Schechter,  Studies,  I,  233  ff.  I.  Abrahams  in  J.  Q.  R.  XI,  62 ;  b  £f., 
and  Claude  Montefiore,  J.  Q.  R.  XIII,  161-217. 


THE  PRIEST-PEOPLE  AND  ITS  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  349 


possible  self-sacrifice  and  to  an  unparalleled  willingness  to 
undergo  suffering  and  martyrdom  for  the  cause.  These 
terms  are  derived  from  the  Biblical  verse,  “Ye  shall  not  pro¬ 
fane  My  holy  name,  but  I  will  be  hallowed  among  the  children 
of  Israel;  I  am  the  Lord  who  hallo  we  th  you.”  1  This  verse 
forms  the  concluding  sentence  of  the  precepts  for  the  Aaron- 
itic  priesthood  and  warns  them  as  the  guardians  of  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  to  do  nothing  which  might  in  the  popular  estimation 
degrade  them  or  the  divine  cause  intrusted  to  them.  When, 
however,  during  the  Maccabean  wars,  the  little  band  of  the 
pious  proved  themselves  to  be  the  true  priesthood  in  their 
opposition  to  the  faithless  Aaronites,  offering  their  very  lives 
as  a  sacrifice  for  the  preservation  of  the  true  faith  in  God, 
the  Scriptural  word  received  a  new  and  higher  meaning. 
It  came  to  signify  the  obligation  of  the  entire  priest-people 
to  consecrate  the  name  of  God  by  the  sacrifice  of  their  lives, 
and  also  their  duty  to  guard  against  its  profanation  by  any 
offensive  act.  In  connection  with  this  Scriptural  passage 
the  sages  represent  God  as  saying,  “I  have  brought  you  out 
of  Egypt  only  on  the  condition  that  you  are  ready  to  sacrifice 
your  lives,  if  need  be,  to  consecrate  My  name.”  2  From  that 
period  it  became  a  duty  and  even  a  law  of  Judaism,  as  Mai- 
monides  shows  in  his  Code,  for  each  person  in  life  and  in  death 
to  bear  witness  to  His  God.3  “Ye  are  My  witnesses,  saith  the 
Lord,  and  I  am  God  ”  4  —  and  witnesses  being  in  the  Greek 
version  martyrs,  the  word  afterward  received  the  meaning 
of  “blood- witnesses.” — This  passage  of  the  prophet  is  com¬ 
mented  on  by  Simeon  ben  Johai,  one  of  the  great  teachers 
who  suffered  under  Hadrian’s  persecution,  in  the  following 
words,  “If  ye  become  My  witnesses,  then  am  I  your  Lord, 
God  of  the  world ;  but  if  ye  do  not  witness  to  Me,  I  cease  to 

1  Lev.  XXII,  32.  2  Sifra  Emor.  IX. 

3  Yesode  ha  Torah  V.  Comp.  Lazarus:  Ethics ,  29,  184. 

4  Isa.  XLIII,  12. 


35° 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


be,  as  it  were,  the  Lord,  God  of  all  the  world.”  1  That  is  to 
say,  it  is  the  martyrdom  of  the  pious  which  glorifies  God’s 
name  before  all  the  world.  Or,  as  Felix  Perles  says  so  beau¬ 
tifully,  “As  every  good  and  noble  man  must  ever  bear  in 
mind  that  the  dignity  of  humanity  is  intrusted  to  his  hand, 
so  should  each  earnest  adherent  of  the  Jewish  faith  remember 
that  the  glory  of  God  is  intrusted  to  his  care.”  2  The  Jewish 
people  has  fulfilled  this  priestly  task  through  a  martyrdom 
of  over  two  thousand  years  and  has  scornfully  resisted  every 
demand  to  abandon  its  faith  in  God,  not  consenting  to  do 
so  even  in  appearance.  Surely  historians  or  philosophers 
who  can  ridicule  or  commiserate  such  resistance  betray  a 
hatred  which  blinds  their  sense  of  justice.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  was  the  consciousness  of  the  Jewish  people  of 
its  priestly  mission  that  has  made  it  a  pattern  of  loyalty 
for  all  time. 

7.  Moreover,  the  fear  of  profaning  the  divine  name  became 
the  highest  incentive  to,  and  safeguard  of  the  morality  of  the 
Jew.  Every  misdeed  toward  a  non- Jew  is  considered  by  the 
teachers  of  Judaism  a  double  sin,  yea,  sometimes,  an  unpardon¬ 
able  one,  because  it  gives  a  false  impression  of  the  moral 
standard  of  Judaism  and  infringes  upon  the  honor  of  God 
as  well  as  that  of  man.  The  disciples  of  Rabbi  Simeon  ben 
Shetach  once  bought  an  ass  for  him  from  an  Arab,  and  to  their 
joy  found  a  precious  stone  in  its  collar.  “Did  the  seller 
know  of  this  gem?”  asked  the  master.  On  being  answered 
in  the  negative,  he  called  out  angrily,  “Do  you  consider 
me  a  barbarian?  Return  the  Arab  his  precious  stone  im¬ 
mediately!”  And  when  the  heathen  received  it  back,  he 
cried  out,  “Praised  be  the  God  of  Simeon  ben  Shetach!”3 
Thus  the  conscientious  Jew  honors  his  God  by  his  conduct, 
says  the  Talmud,  referring  to  this  and  many  similar  examples. 
Such  lessons  of  the  Jew’s  responsibility  for  the  recognition 

1  Pesik.  102  b.  2  Perles,  1.  c.,  68  f.  3  Yer.  B.  M.  II,  8  c. 


THE  PRIEST-PEOPLE  AND  ITS  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  351 


of  the  high  moral  purity  of  his  religion  have  ever  constituted 
a  high  barrier  against  immoral  acts. 

The  words,  “Be  ye  holy,  for  I  the  Lord  your  God  am  holy” 
form  significantly  the  introduction  to  the  chapter  on  the 
love  of  man,  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  placed  at 
the  very  center  of  the  entire  Priestly  Code.  “Your  self¬ 
sanctification  sanctifies  Me,  as  it  were,”  says  God  to  Israel, 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  this  verse  by  the  sages.1 
In  contrast  to  heathendom,  which  deifies  nature  with  its 
appeal  to  the  senses,  Judaism  teaches  that  holiness  is  a  moral 
quality,  as  it  means  the  curbing  of  the  senses.  And  in  order 
to  prevent  Israel,  the  bearer  of  this  ideal  of  holiness,  from 
sinking  into  the  mire  of  heathen  wantonness  and  lust,  the 
separation  of  the  Jew  from  the  heathen  world,  whether  in 
his  domestic  or  social  life,  was  a  necessity  and  became  the 
rule  and  maxim  of  his  life  for  that  period.  All  the  many 
prohibitions  and  commands  had  for  their  object  the  puri¬ 
fication  of  the  people  in  order  to  render  the  highest  moral 
purity  a  hereditary  virtue  among  them,  according  to  the 
rabbis.2 

8.  It  is  true  that  the  accumulation  of  “law  upon  law,  pro¬ 
hibition  upon  prohibition”  by  the  rabbis  had  eventually  the 
same  injurious  effect  which  it  had  exerted  upon  the  priests 
in  the  Temple.  The  formal  law,  “the  precepts  learned  by 
rote,”  became  the  important  factor,  while  their  purpose 
was  lost  to  sight.  The  shell  smothered  the  kernel,  and 
blind  obedience  to  the  letter  of  the  law  came  to  be  regarded 
as  true  piety.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  adherence  to  the  mere 
form,  which  was  transmitted  from  the  Temple  practice  to  the 
legalism  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  later  rabbinic  schools  with 
their  casuistry,  impaired  and  tarnished  the  lofty  prophetic 
ideal  of  holiness.  It  almost  seems  as  if  the  clarion  notes  of 
such  sublime  passages  as  that  of  the  Psalmist, 

1  Sifra  Kedoshim  1.  2  Mak.  23  b. 


352 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


“Who  shall  ascend  into  the  mountain  of  the  Lord, 

And  who  shall  stand  in  His  holy  place  ? 

He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart ; 

Who  hath  not  taken  My  name  in  vain,  and  hath  not  sworn  deceitfully,” 1 

no  longer  found  its  full  resonance  in  the  heart  of  Judaism.  In 
the  practice  of  external  acts  of  piety  religion  became  petrified 
and  the  spirit  took  flight.  That  which  is  of  secondary  impor¬ 
tance  became  of  primary  consideration.  This  is  the  funda¬ 
mental  error  into  which  the  practice  and  the  development  of 
the  Law  in  Judaism  lapsed,  and  to  which  no  careful  observer 
can  or  dares  close  his  eyes.  Undoubtedly  the  Law,  as  it 
embraced  the  whole  of  life  in  its  power,  sharpened  the  Jewish 
sense  of  duty,  and  served  the  Jew  as  an  iron  wall  of  defense 
against  temptations,  aberrations,  and  enticements  of  the  cen¬ 
turies.  As  soon  as  the  modern  Jew,  however,  undertook  to 
free  himself  from  the  tutelage  of  a  blind  acceptance  of  author¬ 
ity  and  inquired  after  the  purpose  of  all  the  restrictions  which 
the  Law  laid  upon  him,  his  ancient  loyalty  to  the  same  collapsed 
and  the  pillars  of  Judaism  seemed  to  be  shaken.  Then  the 
leaders  of  Reform,  imbued  with  the  prophetic  spirit,  felt  it  to 
be  their  imperative  duty  to  search  out  the  fundamental  ideas 
of  the  priestly  law  of  holiness,  and,  accordingly,  they  learned 
how  to  separate  the  kernel  from  the  shell.  In  opposition 
to  the  orthodox  tendency  to  worship  the  letter,  they  insisted 
on  the  fact  that  Israel’s  separation  from  the  world  —  which 
it  is  ultimately  to  win  for  the  divine  truth  —  cannot  itself 
be  its  end  and  aim,  and  that  blind  obedience  to  the  law 
does  not  constitute  true  piety.  Only  the  fundamental  idea, 
that  Israel  as  the  “ first-born”  among  the  nations  has  been 
elected  as  a  priest-people,  must  remain  our  imperishable 
truth,  a  truth  to  which  the  centuries  of  history  bear  witness 
by  showing  that  it  has  given  its  life-blood  as  a  ransom  for 
humanity,  and  is  ever  bringing  new  sacrifices  for  its  cause. 

1  Ps.  xxiv,  3-4 ;  XV,  1-5. 


THE  PRIEST-PEOPLE  AND  ITS  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  353 


Only  because  it  has  kept  itself  distinct  as  a  priest-people 
among  the  nations  could  it  carry  out  its  great  task  in  history ; 
and  only  if  it  remains  conscious  of  its  priestly  calling  and  there¬ 
fore  maintains  itself  as  the  people  of  God,  can  it  fulfill  its  mis¬ 
sion.  Not  until  the  end  of  time,  when  all  of  God’s  children 
will  have  entered  the  kingdom  of  God,  may  Israel,  the  high- 
priest  among  the  nations,  renounce  his  priesthood. 


CHAPTER  LI 


Israel,  the  People  of  the  Law,  and  its  World  Mission 

i.  Judaism  differs  from  all  the  ancient  religions  chiefly 
in  its  intrusting  its  truth  to  the  whole  people  instead  of  a 
special  priesthood.  The  law  which  “  Moses  commanded  us 
is  an  inheritance  of  the  Congregation  of  Jacob,”  1  is  the 
Scriptural  lesson  impressed  upon  every  Jew  in  early  child¬ 
hood.  As  soon  as  the  Torah  passed  from  the  care  of  the 
priests  into  that  of  the  whole  nation,  the  people  of  the  book 
became  the  priest-nation,  and  set  forth  to  conquer  the  world 
by  its  religious  truth.  This  aim  was  expressed  by  all  the 
prophets  beginning  with  Moses,  who  said:  “ Would  that  all 
the  Lord’s  people  were  prophets,  that  the  Lord  would  put 
His  spirit  upon  them.”  2  The  prophetic  ideal  was  that  “they 
shall  all  know  Me  (God),  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the 
greatest  of  them,”3  and  that  “all  thy  (Zion’s)  children  shall 
be  taught  of  the  Lord.” 4  After  the  people  came  to  realize 
that  the  Law  was  “their  wisdom  and  understanding  in  the 
sight  of  the  peoples,” 5  they  soon  felt  the  hope  that  one  day 
“the  isles  shall  wait  for  His  teaching,”  6  and  confidently 
expected  the  time  when  “many  peoples  shall  go  and  say, 
Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to 
the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob ;  and  He  will  teach  us  of  His 
ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  His  paths,  for  out  of  Zion  shall  go 
forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.”  7 
Once  liberated  from  the  dominance  of  the  priesthood,  reli- 

1  Deut.  XXXIII,  4.  2  Num.  XI,  29.  *  Jer.  XXXI,  34. 

4  Isa.  LIV,  13.  6  Deut.  IV,  6.  « Isa.  XLIL  4. 

7  Isa.  II,  3 ;  Micah  IV,  2. 

354 


ISRAEL,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  LAW 


355 


gion  became  the  instrument  of  universal  instruction,  the 
factor  of  general  spiritual  and  moral  advancement.  In 
addition  it  endowed  humanity  with  an  educational  ideal, 
destined  to  regenerate  its  moral  life  far  more  deeply  than 
Greek  culture  could  ever  do.  The  object  was  to  elevate  all 
classes  of  the  people  by  the  living  word  of  God,  by  the  read¬ 
ing  and  expounding  of  the  Scripture  for  the  dissemination  of 
its  truth  among  the  masses. 

2.  Those  who  define  Judaism  as  a  religion  of  law  com¬ 
pletely  misunderstand  its  nature  and  its  historic  forces. 
This  is  done  by  all  those  Christian  theologians  who  endeavor 
to  prove  the  extraordinary  assertion  of  the  apostle  Paul  that 
the  Jewish  people  was  providentially  destined  to  produce 
the  Old  Testament  law  and  become  enmeshed  in  it,  like 
the  silkworm  in  its  cocoon,  finally  to  dry  up  and  perish, 
leaving  its  prophetic  truth  for  the  Church.  This  fateful 
misconception  of  Judaism  is  based  upon  a  false  interpretation 
of  the  word  Torah ,  which  denotes  moral  and  spiritual  instruc¬ 
tion  as  often  as  law,  and  thus  includes  all  kinds  of  religious 
teaching  and  knowledge  together  with  its  primary  meaning, 
the  written  and  the  oral  codes.1  In  fact,  in  post-Biblical 
times  it  comprised  the  entire  religion,  as  subject  of  both 
instruction  and  scientific  investigation.  True,  law  is  funda¬ 
mental  in  Jewish  history ;  Israel  accepted  the  divine  cove¬ 
nant  on  the  basis  of  the  Sinaitic  code;  the  reforms  of  King 
Josiah  were  founded  on  the  Deuteronomic  law ; 2  and  the 
restoration  of  the  Judean  commonwealth  was  based  upon  the 
completed  Mosaic  code  brought  from  Babylon  by  Ezra  the 
Scribe.3  This  book  of  law,  with  its  further  development  and 
interpretation,  remained  the  normative  factor  for  Judaism 
for  all  time.  Still,  from  the  very  beginning  the  Law  of  the 

1  See  Guedemann :  Das  Judenthum ,  67  f. ;  Sued.  Apologetik,  12b ;  Schechter : 
Studies ,  I,  233  f.,  and  Aspects ,  I,  116  f. 

2 II  Kings  XXII,  8  f . 


3  Neh.  VIII-X. 


356 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


covenant  contained  a  certain  element  which  distinguished 
it  from  all  the  priestly  and  political  codes  of  antiquity.  Be¬ 
side  the  traditional  juridical  and  ritualistic  statutes,  which 
betray  a  Babylonian  origin,  it  contains  laws  and  doctrines  of 
kindness  toward  the  poor  and  helpless,  the  enemy  and  the 
slave,  even  toward  the  dumb  beast,  in  striking  contrast  to 
the  spirit  of  cruelty  and  violence  in  the  Babylonian  law.1 
In  the  name  of  the  all-seeing,  all-ruling  God  it  appeals  to  the 
sympathy  of  man.  These  exhortations  to  tenderness  increase 
in  later  codes  of  law  under  the  prophetic  influence,  until 
finally  the  rabbis  extended  them  as  far  as  possible.  They 
held  that  every  negligence  which  leads  to  the  loss  of  life  or 
property  by  the  neighbor,  every  neglect  of  a  domestic  ani¬ 
mal,  even  every  act  of  deceit  by  which  one  attempts  to 
“steal”  the  good  opinion  of  one’s  fellow-men,  is  a  violation 
of  the  law.2  Hence  Rabbi  Simlai,  the  Haggadist,  said  that 
from  beginning  to  end  the  Law  is  but  a  system  of  teachings 
of  human  love,3  while  another  sage  tried  to  prove  from  the 
books  of  Moses  that  God  implanted  mercy,  modesty,  and 
benevolence  in  the  souls  of  Israel  as  hereditary  virtues.4 
In  the  same  spirit  Rabbi  Meir  described  the  law  of  Israel  as 
the  law  of  humanity,  supporting  his  statement  by  a  number 
of  biblical  passages.5 

3.  But,  as  light  by  its  very  nature  illumines  its  surround¬ 
ings,  so  the  Torah  in  the  possession  of  the  Jewish  people 
was  certain  to  become  the  light  of  mankind.  First  of  all, 
the  book  of  Law  itself  insists  that  the  father  shall  teach  the 
word  of  God  to  his  children,  using  many  signs  and  ceremonies 
that  they  may  meditate  on  the  works  of  God  and  walk  in 

1  See  Gunkel :  Israel  u.  Babylonien;  Jeremias  :  Moses  u.  Hammurabi ; 
H.  Grimme:  D.  Gesetz  Chammurabi’ s  u.  Moses’;  George  Cohen:  D.  Gesetze 
Hammurabi’s ;  D.  M.  Mueller:  D.  Gesetz  Hammurabi’ s  u.  d.  mosaische  Gesetz - 
gebung. 

2  See  Chapter  LIX. 

4  Yer.  Kid.  IV,  1 ;  65  c. 


3  Sota  14  a. 

B  Sifra  Ahare  Moth  13. 


ISRAEL,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  LAW 


357 


the  path  of  virtue,  and  that  the  divine  commands  should 
be  “in  the  mouth  and  in  the  heart  of  all  to  do  them.”1  It 
was  made  incumbent  upon  the  high  priest  or  king  to  read  the 
Law  at  least  once  every  seven  years  to  the  whole  people  as¬ 
sembled  in  the  holy  city  for  the  autumnal  festival,  —  men, 
women,  children,  and  the  sojourners  in  the  gates,  —  so  that 
it  should  become  their  common  property.2  This  precept 
probably  gave  rise  to  the  triennial  and  later  the  annual 
system  of  Torah  reading  on  the  Sabbath.  But  in  addition 
to  the  book  of  Law  the  prophetic  words  of  consolation  were 
read  to  the  people,  a  custom  which  originated  in  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  exile,  and  was  continued  under  the  name  of  Haftarah 
(“dismissal”  of  the  congregation).3  The  seer  of  the  exile 
refers  to  these  prophetic  words  of  comfort  which  were  offered 
to  the  people  on  the  Sabbath  as  well  as  other  feasts  and 
fasts:  “Attend  unto  Me,  O  My  people,  and  give  ear  unto 
Me,  0  My  nation,  for  instruction  (Torah)  shall  go  forth  from 
Me,  and  My  right  on  a  sudden  for  a  light  of  the  people.  .  .  . 
Hearken  unto  Me,  ye  that  know  righteousness,  the  people 
in  whose  heart  is  My  law ;  fear  ye  not  the  taunt  of  men, 
neither  be  ye  dismayed  at  their  revilings.  For  the  moth 
shall  eat  them  up  like  a  garment,  and  the  worm  shall  eat 
them  like  wool;  but  My  favor  shall  be  forever,  and  My 
salvation  unto  all  generations.” 4  Moved  by  such  stirring 
ideals,  Synagogues  arose  in  Jewish  settlements  all  over  the 
globe,  and  the  book  of  the  Law,  in  its  vernacular  versions, 
Greek  and  Aramaic,  together  with  the  words  of  the  prophets, 
became  the  general  source  of  instruction.  In  the  words  of 
the  Psalms,  it  became  “the  testimony  of  the  Lord,  making 
wise  the  simple,”  “rejoicing  the  heart,”  “enlightening  the 
eyes,”  “more  to  be  desired  than  gold.”  5  Nay  more,  the 

1  Deut.  VI,  7 ;  XI,  ig ;  XXX,  14 ;  Ex.  XIII,  9. 

2  Deut.  XXXI,  12.  3  See  Elbogen :  D.  Jued.  Gottesdiensl,  174  f. 

4  Isa.  LI,  4,  7-8.  5  Ps.  XIX,  7-10. 


358 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


study  of  the  Law  became  the  duty  of  every  man,  and  he  who 
failed  to  live  up  to  the  precepts  of  the  devotees  of  the  Law, 
the  Pharisean  fellowships,  was  scorned  as  belonging  to  the 
lower  class,  am  haaretz.  Every  morning  the  pious  Jew,  first 
thanking  God  for  the  light  of  day,  followed  this  up  by  thanking 
Him  for  the  Torah,  which  illumines  the  path  of  life.  “The 
welfare  of  society  rests  upon  the  study  of  the  Law,  divine 
service  and  organized  charity/5  was  a  saying  of  Simon  the 
Just,  a  high  priest  of  the  beginning  of  the  third  pre-Christian 
century.1  Thus  learning  and  teaching  became  leading  occu¬ 
pations  for  the  Jew,  and  the  two  main  departments  of  Jewish 
literature,  correspondingly,  are  Torah  and  Talmud,  that  is, 
the  written  Law  and  its  exposition.  Indeed,  the  highest 
title  which  the  rabbis  could  find  for  Moses  was  simply  “Moses 
our  Teacher.55  Nay,  God  Himself  was  frequently  repre¬ 
sented  as  a  venerable  Master,  teaching  the  Law  in  awful 
majesty.2 

4.  Later  under  the  successive  influence  of  Babylonian  and 
Greek  culture,  the  wisdom  literature  was  added  to  the  Proph¬ 
ets  and  the  Psalms,  giving  to  the  whole  Torah  a  universal 
scope,  like  that  claimed  for  Greek  philosophy.  The  Jewish 
love  of  learning  led  to  an  ever  greater  longing  for  truth  by 
adding  the  wisdom  of  other  cultured  nations  to  its  own  store 
of  knowledge.  This  motive  for  universalism  became  all 
the  stronger,  as  the  faith  became  more  centered  in  the  sub¬ 
lime  conception  of  God  as  Master  of  all  the  world.  As  the 
God  of  Israel  appeared  the  primal  source  of  all  truth,  so  the 
revealed  word  of  God  was  considered  the  very  embodiment 
of  divine  wisdom.3  In  fact,  the  men  of  hoary  antiquity  de¬ 
scribed  in  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis  were  actually 
credited  with  being  the  instructors  of  the  Greeks  and  other 

1  Aboth  I,  2. 

2  Mek.  Beshallah  45  b,  note  by  Friedman ;  Yalkut  Yithro  286. 

3  B.  Sira  XXIV,  8-10;  comp.  Bousset,  1.  c.,  136  f. 


ISRAEL,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  LAW 


359 


nations.1  We  read  a  strange  story  by  a  pupil  of  Aristotle 
that  the  great  sage  admired  a  Jew,  whom  he  happened  to 
meet,  as  both  wise  and  pious,  so  that  the  little  Jewish  nation 
was  often  considered,  like  the  wise  men  of  India,  to  be  a 
sect  of  philosophers.2  Indeed,  Judaism  became  a  matter  of 
curiosity  to  the  pagan  world  on  account  of  the  Synagogue, 
which  attracted  them  as  a  unique  center  of  religious  devotion 
and  instruction,  and  especially  because  of  the  Bible,  which 
was  read  and  expounded  in  its  Greek  garb  from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath.  The  Jewish  people  raised  themselves  to  be  a  nation 
of  thinkers,  and  largely  through  association  with  Greek 
thought.  For  example,  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  all  anthropomorphic  expressions  are  avoided. 
As  the  personal  name  of  Israel’s  God  of  the  covenant,  JHVH, 
was  replaced  by  the  name  Adonai,  “the  Lord,”  3  the  univer¬ 
sality  of  the  Jewish  God  became  still  more  evident.  Thus 
the  pagan  world  could  find  God  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  the 
living  God  who  dwells  in  the  heart  and  is  sought  by  all  man¬ 
kind.  The  Jew  became  the  herald  of  the  One  God  of  the 
universe,  his  Bible  a  book  of  universal  instruction.  Many 
of  the  heathen,  without  merging  themselves  into  the  com¬ 
munity  of  the  covenant  people  and  without  accepting  all 
its  particularistic  customs,  rallied  around  its  central  stand¬ 
ard  as  simple  theists,  “worshipers  of  God,”  or  “they  who 
fear  the  Lord,”  according  to  the  terminology  of  the  Psalms.4 

5.  An  old  rabbinical  legend,  which  is  reflected  in  the 
New  Testament  miracle  of  Pentecost,  relates  that  the  Ten 
Words  of  Sinai  were  uttered  in  seventy  tongues  of  fire  to  reach 

1  See  Josephus:  Cont.  Apion .  II,  36  f.,  39;  Aristobulus  in  Eusebius:  Prep. 
Ev.  XIII,  1 2 1,  413  ;  Cuzari,  I,  63  f. ;  II,  66;  comp.  Cassel,  1.  c.  ad  loc. 

2  Josephus,  1.  c.,  I,  22 ;  Gutschmidt :  Kleine  Sckriften ,  IV,  578 ;  Th.  Reinach : 
Textes  Relatifs  au  Judaism,  11-13. 

3  J.  E.,  art.  Adonai. 

4  Ps.  CXV,  11 ;  CXVIII,  4;  comp.  Bernays:  Ges.  Abh.,  II,  71;  Schuerer, 
1.  c.,  Ill,  124  f. 


36° 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  known  seventy  nations  of  the  earth.1  We  are  told  that 
when  the  people  entered  Canaan,  the  words  of  the  Law  were 
engraved  in  seventy  languages  on  the  stones  of  the  altar  at 
Mount  Ebal.2  That  is,  the  law  of  Sinai  was  intended  to 
provide  the  foundation  for  all  human  society.  One  Hag- 
gadist  even  asserts  that  the  heathen  nations  all  refused  to 
accept  the  Law,  and  if  Israel  also  had  rejected  it,  the  world 
would  have  returned  to  chaos.3  Israel  was,  so  to  speak, 
forced  by  divine  Providence  to  accept  the  Law  on  behalf  of 
the  entire  race.  Hillel,  under  the  Romanized  reign  of  Herod, 
was  fully  conscious  of  this  world-mission  when  he  said : 
“Love  your  fellow  creatures  and  lead  them  to  the  study  of 
the  Law.”  4 

6.  The  outlook  for  the  Jewish  people,  however,  became 
darker  and  darker  through  its  struggle  with  Rome.  The 
fanatical  Zealots  entirely  opposed  the  spreading  of  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  Torah  among  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the 
household  of  Israel.5  Then  the  Church  sent  forth  her  mis¬ 
sionaries  to  convert  the  pagan  world  by  constant  conces¬ 
sions  to  its  polytheistic  views  and  practices.  The  seed 
sown  by  Hellenistic  Judaism  yielded  a  rich  harvest  for  the 
Church,  even  though  it  was  won  at  the  sacrifice  of  pure 
Jewish  monotheism.  The  Ten  Words  of  Sinai,  the  Mosaic 
laws  of  marriage,  the  poor  laws,  and  other  Biblical  statutes 
became  the  cornerstone  of  civilization,  but  in  a  different 
guise ;  the  heritage  of  Judaism  was  transplanted  to  the 
Christian  and  Mohammedan  world  in  a  new  garb  and  under 
a  new  name.  Henceforth  the  Jew,  dispersed,  isolated,  and 
afflicted,  had  to  struggle  to  preserve  his  faith  in  its  pristine 
purity.  The  very  danger  besetting  the  study  of  the  Law  during 

1  Shab.  88  b. ;  Ex.  R.  V,  g;  Tanh.  Shemoth,  ed.  Buber,  22  ;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps. 
LXVIII,  6;  Acts  II,  6;  Spitta  :  Apostelgeschichte ,  27,  referring  to  Philo  II,  295. 

2  Sifre  Deut.  XXXIII,  2 ;  XXVII,  8 ;  Sota  35  b.  3  Shab.,  88  a,  b.  ' 

4  Aboth  I,  12.  5  J.  E.,  art.  Zealots. 


ISRAEL,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  LAW 


361 


the  Hadrianic  persecutions,  which  followed  the  Bar  Kochba 
revolt,  increased  his  zeal  and  courage.  “  Devoid  of  the 
Torah,  our.  vital  element,  we  are  surely  threatened  with 
death,”  said  Rabbi  Akiba,  applying  to  himself  the  fable  of 
the  fox  and  the  fishes,  as  he  defied  the  Roman  edict.1  The 
fear  lest  the  Torah  should  be  forgotten,  stimulated  the  teachers 
and  their  disciples  ever  anew  to  its  pursuit.  The  Torah  was 
regarded  as  the  bond  and  pledge  of  God’s  nearness ;  hence 
the  many  rabbinical  sayings  concerning  its  value  in  the  eyes 
of  God,  which  are  frequently  couched  in  poetic  and  extrava¬ 
gant  language.2  The  underlying  idea  of  them  all  is  that 
Israel  could  dispense  with  its  State  and  its  Temple,  but  not 
with  its  storehouse  of  divine  truth,  from  which  it  constantly 
derives  new  life  and  new  youth. 

7.  One  important  question,  however,  remains,  which 
must  be  answered :  Has  the  Jewish  people,  shut  up  for  cen¬ 
turies  by  the  ramparts  of  Talmudic  Judaism,  actually  re¬ 
nounced  its  world  mission  ?  In  transmitting  part  of  its 
inheritance  to  its  two  daughter-religions,  has  Judaism  lost 
its  claim  to  be  a  world-religion  ?  The  Congregation  of 
Israel,  according  to  the  Midrash,  answers  this  question  in 
the  words  of  the  Shulamite  in  the  Song  of  Songs:  “I  sleep, 
but  my  heart  waketh.”  3  During  the  sad  period  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  Judaism  in  its  relation  to  the  outer  world  slept  a  long 
winter-sleep,  now  in  one  land  and  now  in  another,  but  its 
inner  life  always  manifested  a  splendid  activity  of  mind  and 
soul,  exerting  a  mighty  influence  upon  the  history  of  the 
world.  It  was  declared  dead  by  the  ruling  Church,  and  yet 
it  constantly  filled  her  with  alarm  by  the  truths  it  uttered. 
The  Jewish  people  was  given  over  to  destruction  and  per¬ 
secution  a  thousand  times,  but  all  the  floods  of  hatred  and 

1  Ber.  61  b. 

2  Weber,  1.  c.,  46-56 ;  he  fails  completely  to  grasp  this  spirit. 

3  Song  of  Songs,  V,  2. 


362 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


violence  could  not  quench  its  flame.  Its  marvelous  endur¬ 
ance  constituted  the  strongest  possible  protest  against  the 
creed  of  the  Church,  which  claimed  to  possess  an  exclusive 
truth  and  the  only  means  of  salvation.  To  suffer  and  die 
as  martyrs  by  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  at  the  stake 
and  under  the  torture  of  bloodthirsty  mobs,  testifying  to 
the  One  Only  God  of  Israel  and  humanity,  was,  to  say  the 
least,  as  heroic  a  mission  as  to  convert  the  heathen.  In¬ 
deed,  the  Jew,  in  reciting  the  Shema  each  morning  in  the  house 
of  God,  renewed  daily  his  zeal  and  faith,  by  which  he  was 
encouraged  to  sacrifice  himself  for  his  sacred  heritage. 

8.  But  the  cultivation  of  the  Torah,  obligatory  upon 
every  Jew,  effected  more  even  than  the  preservation  of 
monotheism.  Alongside  of  the  Church,  which  did  its  best 
to  suppress  free  thought,  Islam  provided  a  culture  which 
encouraged  study  and  investigation,  and  this  brought  the 
leading  spirits  in  Judaism  to  a  profounder  grasp  of  their 
own  literary  treasures.  Bold  truth-seekers  arose  under  the 
Mohammedan  sway  who  had  the  courage  to  break  the  chains 
of  belief  in  the  letter  of  the  Scripture,  and  to  claim  the  right 
of  the  human  reason  to  give  an  opinion  on  the  highest  ques¬ 
tions  of  religion.  The  leading  authorities  of  the  Synagogue 
followed  a  different  course  from  that  of  the  Church,  which 
had  brought  the  Deity  into  the  sphere  of  the  senses,  divided 
the  one  God  into  three  persons,  and  induced  the  people  to 
worship  the  image  of  Mary  and  her  God-child  rather  than 
God  the  Father.  They  insisted  on  the  absolute  unity  and 
spirituality  of  God,  eliminated  all  the  human  attributes 
ascribed  to  Him  in  Scripture,  and  strove  to  attain  the  loftiest 
and  purest  possible  conception  of  His  being.  It  took  a 
mighty  effort  for  the  people  of  the  Law  to  reexamine  the  entire 
mass  of  tradition  in  order  to  harmonize  philosophy  and  reli¬ 
gion,  and  invest  the  divine  revelation  with  the  highest  spiritual 
character.  This  mental  activity  exerted  a  great  influence 


ISRAEL,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  LAW 


363 


upon  the  whole  course  of  thought  of  subsequent  centuries 
and  even  upon  modern  philosophy.  Again  Israel  became 
conscious  of  his  mission  of  light.  Jewish  thinkers,  often 
combining  rabbi,  physician,  and  astronomer  in  one  person, 
carried  the  torch  of  science  and  free  investigation,  directly 
or  indirectly,  into  the  cell  of  many  a  Christian  monk,  rous¬ 
ing  the  dull  spirit  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  bringing  new  intel¬ 
lectual  nurture  to  the  Church,  else  she  might  have  starved 
in  her  mental  poverty. 

The  Jews  of  Spain  became  the  teachers  of  Christian  Europe. 
The  forerunners  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  sat  at  the 
feet  of  Jewish  masters.  Jewish  students  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  scientifically  trained,  opened  up  the  simple  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  Scriptural  word,  so  long  hidden  by  traditional 
interpretation.  The  Lutheran  and  the  English  translations 
of  the  Bible  were  due  to  their  efforts,  and  thus  also  the  rise 
of  Protestantism,  which  inaugurated  the  modern  era.  Yet 
this  intellectual  revival,  this  wonderful  activity  of  various 
thinkers  among  medieval  Jewry,  required  a  soil  susceptible 
to  such  seeds,  an  atmosphere  favorable  to  this  intense  search 
for  truth.  This  existed  only  in  the  Jewish  people,  since  the 
universal  study  of  the  Torah  brought  it  about  that  “all  the 
children  of  Israel  had  light  in  their  dwellings’’  even  while 
dense  darkness  covered  the  nations  of  the  medieval  world. 

9.  We  must  not  underrate  the  cultural  mission  of  the 
Jewish  people,  with  its  striking  contrast  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  point  of  view,  which  created  monasteries  and  the  celi¬ 
bate  ideal,  and  thus  discouraged  industry,  commerce,  and 
scientific  inquiry.  Dispersed  as  they  were,  the  Jewish  people 
cultivated  both  commerce  and  science,  and  thus  for  centuries 
were  the  real  bearers  of  culture,  the  intermediaries  between 
East  and  West.  While  the  Church  divided  mankind  into 
heirs  of  heaven  and  hell,  thus  sowing  discord  and  hatred,  the 
little  group  of  Jews  maintained  their  ideal  of  an  undivided 


364 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


humanity.  But  even  their  industrial  and  commercial  activ¬ 
ity  had  more  than  a  mere  economic  significance.  Forced 
upon  the  Jew  by  external  pressure,  it  was  favored  by  Jewish 
teaching  as  a  means  of  promoting  spiritual  life.  Not  poverty 
and  beggary,  but  wealth  begotten  by  honest  toil  has  the 
sanction  of  Judaism  in  accordance  with  the  saying  “  Where 
there  is  no  flour  for  bread,  there  can  be  no  support  for  the  study 
of  the  Torah.”  1  Moreover,  the  rabbis  interpreted  the  verse, 
“  Rejoice,  O  Zebulun,  in  thy  going  out,  and  thou,  Issachar, 
in  thy  tents,”2  as  meaning  that  Zebulun,  the  seafarer,  shared 
the  profit  of  his  commerce  with  Issachar,  who  taught  the  law 
in  the  tents  of  the  Torah,  that  he,  in  turn,  might  share  his 
brother’s  spiritual  reward.  Indeed,  the  Jew  used  his  gains 
won  by  trade  in  the  service  of  the  promotion  of  learning, 
and  thus  his  entire  industry  assumed  a  higher  character. 
Our  modern  civilization,  with  its  higher  values  of  life,  owes 
much  to  the  cultural  activity  of  the  medieval  Jew,  which 
many  leaders  of  the  ruling  Church  still  ignore  completely.  It 
is  true  that  the  hard  struggle  for  their  very  existence  kept  the 
people  unconscious  of  their  cultural  mission,  and  only  now 
that  they  have  attained  the  higher  historical  point  of  view 
can  they  exclaim  with  Joseph  their  ancestor:  “As  for  you, 
ye  meant  evil  against  me;  but  God  meant  it  for  good,  to 
bring  it  to  pass,  as  it  is  this  day,  to  save  much  people  alive.”  3 
The  fact  is  that  Jewish  commerce  has  been  an  important 
cosmopolitan  factor  in  the  past,  and  is  still  working,  to  a 
certain  extent,  in  the  same  direction.4 

io.  New  and  great  tasks  have  been  assigned  by  divine 
Providence  to  the  Jew  of  modern  times,  who  is  a  full  citizen 
in  the  cultural,  social,  and  political  life  of  the  various  nations. 

1  Aboth.  Ill,  2i.  2  Deut.  XXXIII,  18.  See  Gen.  R.  XCIX,  n. 

3  Gen.  L,  20. 

4  See  J.  E.,  art.  “Commerce”;  American  Encyclopedia,  art.  Jewish  Com¬ 
merce;  Publ.  Am.  Hist.  Soc.  X,  47;  Schulman  in  Judaean  Addresses y  II,  77  fE., 
and  Lecky:  Rationalism  in  Europe ,  II,  272. 


ISRAEL,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  LAW 


365 


These  tasks  are  most  holy  to  him  as  Jew,  the  bearer  of  a 
great  mission  to  the  world,  which  is  embodied  in  his  heritage, 
the  Torah.  However  splendid  may  have  been  his  achieve¬ 
ments  in  the  fields  of  industry  and  commerce,  of  literature 
and  art,  his  own  peculiar  possession  is  the  Torah  alone,  the 
religious  truth  for  which  he  fought  and  suffered  all  these 
centuries  past ;  this  must  forever  remain  the  central  thought, 
the  aim  of  all  his  striving.1  Every  achievement  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  people,  every  attainment  in  power,  knowledge,  or  skill, 
must  lead  toward  the  completion  of  the  divine  kingdom  of 
truth  and  justice ;  that  for  which  the  Jew  laid  the  founda¬ 
tion  at  the  beginning  of  his  history  is  still  leading  forward 
the  entire  social  life  of  man  to  render  it  a  divine  household  of 
love  and  peace.  In  order  that  it  may  carry  out  the  world 
mission  mapped  out  by  its  great  seers  of  yore,  the  Jewish 
people  must  guard  against  absorption  by  the  multitude  of 
nations  as  much  as  against  isolation  from  them.  It  must 
preserve  its  identity  without  going  back  into  a  separation 
rooted  in  self-adulation  and  clannishness.  Instead,  the 
great  goal  of  Israel  will  be  reached  only  by  patient  endurance 
and  perseverance,  confidently  awaiting  the  fulfillment  in 
God’s  own  time  of  the  glorious  prophecy  that  all  the  nations 
shall  be  led  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord  by  the  priest- 
people,  there  to  worship  God  in  truth  and  righteousness. 
The  Law  is  to  go  forth  from  Zion  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
from  Jerusalem,  as  a  spiritual,  not  a  geographical  center.  This 
vision  forms  the  highest  pinnacle  of  human  aspiration,  rising 
higher  and  higher  before  the  mind,  as  man  ascends  from  one 
stage  of  culture  to  another,  striving  ever  for  perfection,  for 
the  sublimest  ideal  of  life.  This  is  characteristically  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  Midrash,  which  refers  to  the  Messianic  vision : 
“And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  end  of  days,  that  the  moun¬ 
tain  of  the  Lord’s  house  shall  be  established  as  the  top  of  the 
1  See  Saadia :  Emunolli ,  III,  17,  quoted  by  Schechter :  Aspects ,  105. 


366 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills.,?  1  “One 
great  mountain  of  the  earth  will  be  piled  upon  the  other,  and 
Mount  Zion  will  be  placed  upon  the  top  as  the  culminating 
point  of  all  human  ascents.’’  Taken  in  a  figurative  sense, 
in  which  alone  the  saying  is  acceptable,  this  means  that  all 
the  heights  of  the  various  ideals  will  finally  merge  into  the 
loftiest  of  all  ideals,  when  Israel’s  one  holy  God  will  be  ac¬ 
knowledged  as  the  One  for  whom  all  hearts  yearn,  whom  all 
minds  seek  as  the  Ideal  of  all  ideals. 

1  Isa.  II,  2;  Micah  IV,  1;  see  Pesik  144  b;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  XXXVI,  6; 
LXXXVII,  3. 


CHAPTER  LII 


Israel,  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  Martyr  and  Messiah 

of  the  Nations 

i.  “If  there  are  ranks  in  suffering,  Israel  takes  precedence. 
If  the  duration  of  sorrows  and  the  patience  with  which  they 
are  borne,  ennoble,  the  Jews  are  among  the  aristocracy  of 
every  land.  If  a  literature  is  called  rich  which  contains  a 
few  classic  tragedies,  what  shall  we  say  to  a  national 
tragedy  lasting  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  in  which  the  poets 
and  the  actors  are  also  the  heroes?”  With  these  classic 
words  Leopold  Zunz  introduces  the  history  of  sufferings 
which  have  occasioned  the  hundreds  of  plaintive  and  peni¬ 
tential  songs  of  the  Synagogue  described  in  his  book,  Die 
Synagogale  Poesie  des  Mittelalters.  They  are  the  cries  of  a 
nation  of  martyrs,  resounding  through  the  whole  Jewish 
liturgy,  and  appearing  already  in  many  of  the  Psalms  :  “Thou 
hast  given  us  like  sheep  to  be  eaten ;  and  hast  scattered  us 
among  the  nations.  Thou  makest  us  a  taunt  to  our  neigh¬ 
bors,  a  scorn  and  a  derision  to  them  that  are  round  about  us. 
All  this  is  come  upon  us,  yet  have  we  not  forgotten  Thee, 
neither  have  we  been  false  to  Thy  covenant :  Nay,  for  Thy 
sake  are  we  killed  all  the  day ;  we  are  accounted  as  sheep 
for  the  slaughter.  Awake,  why  sleepest  Thou,  O  Lord? 
Arouse  Thyself,  cast  not  off  forever.  Wherefore  hidest 
Thou  Thy  face,  and  forgettest  our  affliction  and  our  oppres¬ 
sion?”1  Thus  the  congregation  of  Israel  laments;  and 
what  is  the  answer  of  Heaven? 

1  Ps.  XLIV,  12—25. 

367 


368 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


2.  The  Bible  contains  two  answers:  the  first  by  Ezekiel, 
priest  and  prophet;  the  other  by  the  great  unknown  seer 
of  the  Exile  whose  words  of  comfort  are  given  in  the  latter 
part  of  Isaiah.  Ezekiel  gave  a  stern  and  direct  answer  :  “  The 
nations  shall  know  that  the  house  of  Israel  went  into  cap¬ 
tivity  because  of  their  iniquity,  because  they  broke  faith 
with  Me,  and  I  hid  My  face  from  them ;  so  I  gave  them  into 
the  hand  of  their  adversaries,  and  they  fell  all  of  them  by  the 
sword.  According  to  their  uncleanness  and  according  to 
their  transgressions  did  I  unto  them ;  and  I  hid  My  face 
from  them.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  God :  Now  will 
I  bring  back  the  captivity  of  Jacob,  and  have  compassion 
upon  the  whole  house  of  Israel ;  and  I  will  be  jealous  for  My 
holy  name.  And  they  shall  bear  their  shame,  and  all  their 
breach  of  faith  which  they  committed  against  Me.”  1  These 
words  are  echoed  in  the  harrowing  admonitory  chapter  of 
Leviticus,  which,  however,  closes  with  words  of  comfort : 
tl  And  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity  ...  if  then  perchance 
their  uncircumcised  heart  be  humbled,  and  they  then  be 
paid  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity ;  then  will  I  remember 
My  covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  My  covenant  with  Isaac, 
and  also  My  covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember ; 
and  I  will  remember  the  land.”  2  This  view  of  divine  justice 
as  external  and  punitive  was  basic  to  the  Synagogue  liturgy 
and  the  entire  rabbinic  system.  The  priestly  idea  of  atone¬ 
ment,  that  sin  could  be  wiped  out  by  sacrifice,  made  a  pro¬ 
found  impression,  not  only  upon  individual  sinners,  but  also 
upon  the  nation.  Hence  it  was  applied  especially  to  the 
people  in  exile  when  they  could  not  bring  sacrifices  to  their 
God.  Still,  one  means  of  atonement  remained,  the  exile 
itself,  which  could  lead  the  people  to  repentance  and  finally 
to  God’s  forgiveness.3  Thus  the  people  retained  a  hope  of 
return  from  their  captivity.  They  were  assured  by  their 
1  Ezek.  XXXIX,  23-26.  2  Lev.  XXVI,  40-42.  3 1  Kings  VIII,  47-50. 


ISRAEL,  THE  SERVANT  OF  THE  LORD  369 

prophetic  monitors  that  the  faithful  community  of  the  Lord 
would  again  be  received  in  favor  by  the  God  of  faithfulness. 
They  even  built  their  hope  upon  the  portions  of  the  Law, 
which  was  read  to  assembled  worshipers  that  they  might 
know  and  observe  it  on  their  return  to  the  land  of  their 
fathers.  Israel  could  say  with  the  Psalmist:  “ Unless  Thy 
law  had  been  my  delight,  I  should  then  have  perished  in 
mine  affliction.”  1  According  to  a  Palestinian  Haggadist, 
“Israel  would  never  have  persevered  so  long,  had  not  the 
Torah,  the  marriage  contract  of  Israel  with  its  God,  pledged 
to  it  a  glorious  future  on  the  holy  soil.”  2  Wait  patiently  for 
God’s  mercy,  which  in  His  own  time  will  rebuild  Israel’s 
State  and  Temple! — this  is  the  keynote  of  all  the  prayers 
and  songs  of  the  Synagogue. 

3.  But  the  great  seer  of  the  exile,  whose  anonymity  lends 
still  greater  impressiveness  to  his  words  of  comfort,  stood  on 
a  higher  historical  plane  than  that  of  Ezekiel  the  priest.  He 
witnessed  the  transformation  of  the  entire  political  world 
of  his  time  through  the  victory  of  Cyrus  the  Mede  over  the 
Babylonian  empire,  and  thus  was  able  to  attain  a  profounder 
grasp  of  the  destiny  of  his  own  nation.  Hence  he  was  not 
satisfied  with  the  view  of  Ezekiel.  The  latter  had  applied 
the  popular  saying,  “The  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes, 
and  the  children’s  teeth  are  set  on  edge,”  3  to  refute  the 
belief  that  an  individual  was  punished  for  the  sins  of  his 
fathers ;  but  he  failed  to  extend  this  doctrine  to  the  whole 
nation.  Whatever  sins  were  committed  by  the  generation 
who  were  exiled,  their  children  ought  not  to  suffer  for  them 
“in  double  measure.”  4  Moreover,  the  realm  of  love  has  a 
higher  law  than  atonement  through  retribution.  Love  brings 
its  sacrifice  without  asking  why.  By  willing  sacrifice  of  self 
it  serves  its  higher  purpose.  He  who  struggles  and  suffers 
silently  for  the  good  and  true  is  God’s  servant ,  who  cannot 
1  Ps.  CXIX,  92.  2  Pesik.  139  b.  3  Ezek.  XVIII,  2.  4  Isa.  XL,  2. 


370 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


perish.  He  attains  a  higher  glory,  transcending  the  fate 
of  mortality.  This  is  the  new  revelation  that  came  to  the 
seer,  as  he  pondered  on  the  destiny  of  Israel  in  exile, 
illumining  for  him  that  dark  enigma  of  his  people’s  tragic 
history. 

The  problem  of  suffering,  especially  that  of  the  servant 
of  God,  or  the  pious,  occupied  the  Jewish  mind  ever  since 
the  days  of  Jeremiah  and  especially  during  the  exile.  The 
author  of  the  book  of  Job  elaborated  this  into  a  great  theodicy, 
speaking  of  Job  also  as  the  “ servant  of  the  Lord.”  1  What¬ 
ever  pattern  our  exilic  seer  employed,  beside  the  chapters 
about  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,2  whatever  tragic  fate  of  some 
great  contemporary  the  plaintive  song  in  the  fifty-second 
and  fifty- third  chapters  referred  to  (some  point  to  Jeremiah, 
others  to  Zerubabel),3  or  whether  the  poet  had  in  mind  only 
the  tragic  fate  of  Israel,  as  many  modern  exegetes  think; 
in  any  case  he  conceived  the  unique  and  pathetic  picture  of 
Israel  as  the  suffering  Servant  of  the  Lord,  who  is  at  last  to 
be  exalted : 4 

“  Behold,  My  servant  shall  prosper,  he  shall  be  exalted 
and  lifted  up,  and  shall  be  very  high.  According  as  many 
were  appalled  at  thee  —  so  marred  was  his  visage  unlike  that 
of  a  man,  and  his  form  unlike  that  of  the  sons  of  men  —  so 
shall  he  startle  many  nations ;  kings  shall  shut  their  mouths 
because  of  him ;  for  that  which  had  not  been  told  them  they 
shall  see,  and  that  which  they  had  not  heard  shall  they  per¬ 
ceive.  Who  would  have  believed  our  report?  And  to  whom 
hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed?  For  he  shot  up 
right  forth  as  a  sapling,  and  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground ; 

1  Job  I,  8;  II,3;  XLII,  7,  8. 

2  Isa.  XLII,  1  f.;  XLIX,  1;  L,  4;  LII,  13-LIII,  12. 

3  See  Ibn  Ezra,  quoting  Saadia ;  Ewald  and  Giesebrecht,  commentaries ; 
Sellin :  Serubabel,  96  f.,  144  f. ;  also  Davidson,  1.  c.,  p.  356-398. 

4  Isa.  LII,  13-LIII,  12.  In  LIII,  9,  we  should  read  “the  evil-doers”  in¬ 
stead  of  “the  rich”  by  a  slight  amendment  of  the  text. 


ISRAEL,  THE  SERVANT  OF  THE  LORD 


371 


he  had  no  form  nor  comeliness,  that  we  should  look  upon 
him,  nor  beauty  that  we  should  delight  in  him.  He  was 
despised  and  forsaken  of  men,  a  man  of  pains,  and  acquainted 
with  disease,  and  as  one  from  whom  men  hide  their  face; 
he  was  despised,  and  we  esteemed  him  not.  Surely  our  dis¬ 
eases  he  did  bear,  and  our  pains  he  carried ;  whereas  we 
did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted.  But 
he  was  wounded  because  of  our  transgressions,  he  was  crushed 
because  of  our  iniquities;  the  chastisement  of  our  welfare 
was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  were  healed.  All  we, 
like  sheep,  did  go  astray,  we  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ; 
and  the  Lord  hath  made  to  light  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all.  He  was  oppressed,  though  he  humbled  himself,  and 
opened  not  his  mouth ;  as  a  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaughter, 
and  as  a  sheep  that  before  her  shearers  is  dumb ;  yea,  he 
opened  not  his  mouth.  By  oppression  and  judgment  he 
was  taken  away,  and  with  his  generation  who  did  reason? 
For  he  was  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living,  for  the  trans¬ 
gression  of  my  people  to  whom  the  stroke  was  due.  And 
they  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  his 
tomb ;  although  he  had  done  no  violence,  neither  was  any 
deceit  in  his  mouth.  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  crush  him 
by  disease ;  to  see  if  his  soul  would  offer  itself  in  restitution, 
that  he  might  see  his  seed,  prolong  his  days,  and  that  the 
purpose  of  the  Lord  might  prosper  by  his  hand.  Of  the  trav¬ 
ail  of  his  soul  he  shall  see  to  the  full,  even  My  servant,  who 
by  his  knowledge  did  justify  the  Righteous  One  to  the  many, 
and  their  iniquities  he  did  bear.  Therefore  will  I  divide 
him  a  portion  among  the  great,  and  he  shall  divide  his  soul 
with  the  mighty ;  because  he  bared  his  soul  unto  death,  and 
was  numbered  with  the  transgressors ;  yet  he  bore  the  sin 
of  many,  and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors.” 

4.  Whatever  be  the  historical  background  of  this  great 
elegy,  our  seer  uses  it  to  portray  Israel  as  the  tragic  hero 


372 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  the  world’s  history.  His  prophetic  genius  possessed  a 
unique  insight  into  the  character  and  destiny  of  his  people, 
seeing  Israel  as  a  man  of  woe  and  grief,  chosen  by  Providence 
to  undergo  unheard-of  trials  for  a  great  cause,  by  which,  at 
the  last,  he  is  to  be  exalted.  Bent  and  disfigured  by  his 
burden  of  misery  and  shame,  shunned  and  abhorred  as  one 
laden  with  sin,  he  suffers  for  no  guilt  of  his  own.  He  is  called 
to  testify  to  his  God  among  all  the  peoples,  and  is  thus  the 
Servant  of  the  Lord ,  the  atoning  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  man¬ 
kind,  from  whose  bruises  healing  is  to  come  to  all  the  nations, 
—  an  inimitable  picture  of  a  self-sacrificing  hero,  whose  death 
means  life  to  the  world  and  glory  to  God,  and  who  will  at  last 
live  forever  with  the  Lord  whom  he  has  served  so  steadfastly. 
Our  seer  mentions  in  earlier  passages  the  Servant  of  the 
Lord  who  “gave  his  back  to  the  smiters,  and  his  cheeks  to 
them  that  plucked  off  the  hair ;  and  hid  not  his  face  from 
shame  and  spitting.”  1  Yet  “he  shall  set  his  face  like  a  flint,” 
so  that  “he  shall  not  fail  nor  be  crushed,  till  he  have  set  the 
right  in  the  earth ;  and  the  isles  shall  wait  for  his  teaching.”  2 
Still  more  directly,  he  says:  “And  He  said  unto  Me,  ‘Thou 
art  My  servant,  Israel,  in  whom  I  will  be  glorified.’  ...  It 
is  too  light  a  thing  that  thou  shouldest  be  My  servant  to  raise 
up  the  tribes  of  Jacob  and  to  restore  the  offspring  of  Israel ; 
I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  of  the  nations,  that  My  salva¬ 
tion  may  be  unto  the  end  of  the  earth.  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
the  Redeemer  of  Israel,  his  Holy  One,  to  him  who  is  despised 
of  men,  to  him  who  is  abhorred  of  nations,  to  a  servant  of 
rulers :  kings  shall  see  and  arise,  princes,  and  they  shall 
prostrate  themselves;  because  of  the  Lord  that  is  faithful, 
even  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  who  hath  chosen  thee.”  3 

5.  It  was,  however,  no  easy  matter  for  men  reared  in  the 
old  view  to  reach  the  lofty  conception  of  a  suffering  hero. 
Even  the  dramatic  figure  of  Job  seemed  to  lack  the  right 
1  Isa.  L,  6.  2  Isa.  XLII,  4.  3  Isa.  XLIX,  1-6. 


ISRAEL,  THE  SERVANT  OF  THE  LORD 


373 


solution.  Job  protests  his  guiltlessness,  defies  the  dark  power 
of  fate,  and  even  challenges  divine  justice,  but  God  himself 
announces  at  the  end  that  no  man  can  grasp  the  essence  of 
His  plan  for  the  world.  A  later  and  more  naive  writer, 
who  added  the  conclusion  of  the  book,  reversed  Job’s  destiny 
and  compensated  him  by  a  double  share  of  what  he  had  lost 
in  both  wealth  and  family.1  As  if  the  great  problem  of 
suffering  could  be  solved  by  such  external  means !  Neither 
would  the  problem  of  the  great  tragedy  of  Israel,  the  martyr- 
priest  of  the  centuries,  the  Job  of  the  nations,  ever  find  its 
solution  in  a  national  restoration.  A  mere  political  rebirth 
could  never  compensate  for  the  thousandfold  death  and 
untold  woe  of  the  Jew  for  his  God  and  his  faith !  But  the 
people  at  large  could  not  grasp  such  a  conception  as  is  that 
of  Deutero-Isaiah’s  of  the  mission  of  Israel  to  be  the  suffer¬ 
ing  servant  of  the  Lord,  the  witness  of  God  —  which  is  “mar¬ 
tyr”  in  the  Greek  version,  —  the  redeemer  of  the  nations. 
They  were  eager  to  return  to  Palestine,  to  rebuild  State  and 
Temple  under  the  leadership  of  the  heir  to  the  throne  of 
David.  But  when  their  hope  had  failed  that  Zerubbabel 
would  prove  to  be  the  “shoot  of  Jesse,”  2  the  prophetic  elegy 
was  referred  to  the  Messiah,  and  the  belief  gained  ground 
that  he  would  have  to  suffer  before  he  would  triumph.3 
Thus  many  a  pseudo-Messiah  fell  a  victim  to  the  tyranny 
of  Rome  in  both  Judaea  and  Samaria,  —  for  the  Samaritans 
also  hoped  for  a  Messiah,  a  redeemer  of  the  type  of  Moses.4 
Finally  a  belief  arose  that  there  would  be  two  Messiahs, 
one  of  the  house  of  Joseph,  that  is,  the  tribe  of  Ephraim, 

1  Job  XLII,  10-17. 

2  The  disappointment  is  especially  voiced  in  Ps.  LXXX,  16  f. ;  LXXIX, 
40—46. 

3  See  Targum  and  Abravanel  to  Isa.  LII,  13 ;  comp.  Pes.  R.  XXXVI- 
XXXVII ;  Sanh.  98  b. 

4  He  is  called  Taeb  “Moses  redivivus,”  after  Deut.  XVIII,  18.  Merk,  E. 
Samarit.  Fragment  ueb.  d.  Taeb.  See  Bousset,  1.  c.,  258;  J.  E.,  art.  Samaritans. 


374 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


who  would  fall  before  the  sword  of  the  enemy,1  and  the  other 
of  the  house  of  David,  who  was  to  conquer  the  heathen 
nations  and  establish  his  throne  forever.2 

The  Church  referred  the  pathetic  figure  of  the  man  of  sor¬ 
row  to  her  crucified  Messiah  or  Christ.  Yet  he  who  was 
to  be  a  world-savior  bore  through  his  followers  damnation  to 
his  own  kinsmen,  and  thus  was  rendered  the  chief  cause  of 
the  persecution  of  the  martyr-race  of  Israel. 

6.  We  learn,  however,  from  Origen,  a  Church  father  of 
the  third  century,  that  Jewish  scholars,  in  a  controversy  with 
him,  expressed  the  view  that  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  refers 
to  the  Jewish  people,  which,  dispersed  among  the  nations  and 
universally  despised,  would  finally  obtain  the  ascendancy 
over  them,  so  that  many  of  the  heathen  would  espouse 
the  Jewish  faith.3  Most  of  the  medieval  Jewish  exegetes, 
including  Rashi,  who  usually  follows  the  traditional  view, 
refer  the  chapter  likewise  to  the  Jewish  people.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  earlier  chapters  which  speak  of  the  Servant  of 
the  Lord  can  have  no  other  meaning,  while  many  points  in 
the  description  of  the  suffering  hero,  especially  the  reference 
to  his  seed  after  his  death,  do  not  fit  the  Nazarene  at  all. 
Hence  all  independent  Christian  scholars  to-day  have  aban¬ 
doned  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  and  admit  that  Israel 
alone  is  declared  by  the  prophet  to  be  the  one  singled  out  by 
God  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  nations,  to  arouse  all  hu¬ 
manity  to  a  deeper  spiritual  vision,  and  finally  to  triumph 
over  all  the  heathen  world.4 

7.  Thus  the  strange  history  of  the  martyr  people  is  put 
in  the  right  light  and  the  great  tragedy  of  Israel  explained. 
Israel  is  the  champion  of  the  Lord,  chosen  to  battle  and  suffer 
for  the  supreme  values  of  mankind,  for  freedom  and  justice, 

1  Suk.  52  a;  Jellinek  :  B.  H.  Ill,  141  f ;  Schuerer,  1.  c.,  II,  535. 

2  J.  E.,  art.  Messiah.  5  Contra  Celsum  I,  153. 

4  See  commentaries  of  Cheyne,  Duhm,  Giesebrecht,  and  others. 


ISRAEL,  THE  SERVANT  OF  THE  LORD 


375 


truth  and  humanity ;  the  man  of  woe  and  grief,  whose  blood 
is  to  fertilize  the  soil  with  the  seeds  of  righteousness  and  love 
for  mankind.  From  the  days  of  Pharaoh  to  the  present 
day,  every  oppressor  of  the  Jews  has  become  the  means  of 
bringing  greater  liberty  to  a  wider  circle ;  for  the  God  of 
Israel,  the  Hater  of  bondage,  has  been  appealed  to  in  behalf 
of  freedom  in  the  old  world  and  the  new.  Every  hardship 
that  made  life  unbearable  to  the  Jew  became  a  road  to  human¬ 
ity’s  triumph  over  barbarism.  All  the  injustice  and  malice 
which  hurled  their  bitter  shafts  against  Israel,  the  Pariah  of 
the  nations,  led  ultimately  to  the  greater  victory  of  right 
and  love.  So  all  the  dark  waves  of  hatred  and  fanaticism 
that  beat  against  the  Jewish  people  served  only  to  impress 
the  truth  of  monotheism,  coupled  with  sincere  love  of  God  and 
man,  more  deeply  upon  all  hearts  and  to  consign  hypocrisy 
and  falsehood  to  eternal  contempt.  Such  is  the  belief  con¬ 
fidently  held  by  the  people  of  God,  and  ever  confirmed  anew 
by  the  history  of  the  ages.  “He  is  near  that  justifieth  me; 
who  will  contend  with  me  ?  let  us  stand  up  together ;  who  is 
mine  adversary?  let  him  come  near  to  me.  Behold,  the 
Lord  God  will  help  me ;  who  is  he  that  shall  condemn  me?”  1 
Thus  speaks  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  certain  that  he  will 
finally  triumph,  because  he  defends  God’s  cause,  and  is  bound 
indissolubly  to  Him.2  Indeed,  God  says  of  him:  “Surely, 
he  that  touche th  you  touche th  the  apple  of  Mine  (his)  eye.”  3 

8.  The  great  importance  which  the  rabbis  attached  to 
Israel’s  martyrdom  is  shown  by  the  following  remarks  in 
connection  with  the  laws  of  sacrifice:  “Behold,  how  the 
Torah  selects  for  the  sacrificial  altar  only  such  animals  as 
belong  to  the  pursued,  not  the  pursuers :  the  ox  which  is 
pursued  by  the  lion ;  the  lamb  which  is  pursued  by  the  wolf ; 
the  goat  which  is  pursued  by  the  panther,  but  none  of  those 

1  Isa.  L,  8-9.  2  Comp.  Pesik.  131  b;  Ex.  R.  II,  7. 

3  Zech.  II,  12.  See  Geiger:  Urschrift ,  324,  as  to  the  Soferic  Emendation. 


376 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


which  feed  on  prey.  In  like  manner  God  chose  for  His  own 
the  persecuted  ones  :  Abel,  who  was  persecuted  by  his  brother 
Cain  ;  Noah,  who  was  derided  by  the  generation  of  the  flood  ; 
Abraham,  who  had  to  flee  before  the  tyrant  Nimrod ;  and 
Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Joseph,  who  met  with  unkindness  from 
their  own  brothers.  In  the  same  way  God  has  chosen  Israel 
from  among  the  seventy  nations,  as  the  lamb  hunted,  as 
it  were,  by  seventy  wolves,  that  it  should  bear  His  law  to 
mankind.”  1  This  idea  is  expressed  also  in  the  Haggadic 
saying:  “ Those  shall  be  privileged  to  see  the  majesty  of 
God  in  full  splendor  who  meet  humiliation,  but  do  not  humil¬ 
iate  others ;  who  bear  insult,  but  do  not  inflict  it  on  others ; 
and  who  endure  a  life  of  martyrdom  in  pure  love  of  God.”  2 
Indeed,  the  medieval  Jew  accepted  his  sad  lot  in  this 
spirit  of  resignation.  But  the  modern  Jew  is  in  a  different 
situation.  In  the  mighty  effort  of  our  age  for  higher  truth, 
broader  love  and  larger  justice,  he  beholds  the  nearing  of  the 
prophetic  goal  of  a  united  humanity,  based  on  the  belief 
in  God,  the  King  and  Father  of  all.  Accordingly,  modern 
Judaism  proclaims  more  insistently  than  ever  that  the  Jewish 
people  is  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  the  suffering  Messiah  of 
the  nations,  who  offered  his  life  as  an  atoning  sacrifice  for 
humanity  and  furnished  his  blood  as  the  cement  with  which 
to  build  the  divine  kingdom  of  truth  and  justice.  Indeed, 
the  cosmopolitan  spirit  of  the  Jew  is  the  one  element  needed 
for  the  universality  of  culture.  On  the  other  hand,  the  world 
at  large  is  to-day  learning  more  and  more  to  regard  the  superb 
loyalty  of  the  Jew  to  his  ancestral  faith  with  greater  fairness 
and  admiration  and  to  accord  larger  appreciation  to  him  and 
his  religion.  Once  the  flood  of  hatred,  dissension,  and  preju¬ 
dice  that  brought  such  untold  havoc  shall  have  disappeared 
from  the  earth;  once  religion  emerges  from  the  nebulous 

1  Pesik.  76  a;  Eccl.  R.  Ill,  19;  Lev.  R.  XXVII,  5. 

2  Yoma  23  a,  referring  to  Jud.  V,  31. 


ISRAEL,  THE  SERVANT  OF  THE  LORD 


377 


atmosphere  of  other-worldliness,  and  directs  its  longing  for 
God  toward  a  life  of  godliness  on  earth  in  the  spirit  of  the 
ancient  prophets,  then  the  historic  mission  of  the  Jew  will 
also  be  better  understood.  Israel,  the  hunted  dove,  which 
found  no  resting-place  for  the  sole  of  its  foot  during  the  flood 
of  sin  and  persecution,  will  then  appear  with  the  olive-branch 
of  peace  for  all  humanity,  to  open  the  hearts  of  men  that  all 
may  enter  the  covenant  with  the  universal  Father.  Then, 
and  not  till  then,  will  the  shame  of  those  thousands  of  years 
be  rolled  away,  when  the  world  will  recognize  that  not  a 
Jew,  but  the  Jew  has  been  the  suffering  Messiah,  and  that  he 
was  sent  forth  to  be  the  savior  of  the  nations. 


CHAPTER  LIII 


The  Messianic  Hope 

i.  Recent  investigators  have  brought  to  light  many  a 
vision  of  an  era  of  heavenly  bliss  brought  about  by  some 
powerful  ruler,  voiced  in  hoary  antiquity  by  seer  or  singer  in 
addressing  the  royal  masters  of  Babylon  or  Egypt.1  But  no 
word  in  the  entire  vocabulary  of  ancient  poetry  or  prose  can 
so  touch  the  deeper  chords  of  the  heart,  and  so  voice  the 
highest  hopes  of  mankind,  as  does  the  name  Messiah  (“God’s 
anointed”).  From  a  simple  title  for  any  of  the  kings  of 
Israel,  it  grew  in  meaning  until  it  comprised  the  highest 
hopes  of  the  nation.  The  Jewish  vision  of  the  future  was 
not  the  twilight  of  the  gods,  which  meant  the  end  of  the 
world  with  its  deities,  but  the  dawn  of  a  new  world,  bright 
with  the  knowledge  of  God  and  blessed  by  the  brotherhood 
of  man.  This,  the  Messianic  ideal,  is  the  creation  of  the 
prophetic  genius  of  Israel,  and  in  turn  it  influenced  man’s 
conception  of  God,  lifting  Him  out  of  the  national  bounds, 
and  making  Him  the  God  of  humanity,  Ruler  of  history. 
Israel’s  Messianic  hope  has  become  the  motive  power  of 
civilization.  In  the  time  of  deepest  national  humiliation 
it  gave  the  prophets  their  power  to  surmount  the  present 
and  soar  to  heights  of  vision;  through  it  the  Jewish  people 
attained  their  strength  to  resist  oppression,  buoyed  up  by 
perfect  confidence  and  sublime  hope.  At  the  same  time 
its  magic  luster  captivated  the  non-Jewish  nations,  spurring 
them  on  to  mighty  deeds.  Thus  it  has  actually  conquered 

1  See  Gressmann :  Urspr.  d.  Israel,  u.jued.  Eschatologie, — an  instructive  work, 
but  full  of  unsubstantiated  assertions,  thus  failing  to  do  justice  to  the  creative 
genius  of  the  Jewish  prophets. 


378 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


379 


the  whole  world  of  man.  With  every  step  in  culture  it 
points  forward  to  higher  aims,  still  unattained;  it  promises 
to  lead  mankind,  united  in  God,  the  Only  One,  to  truth  and 
justice,  righteousness  and  love.  As  the  banner  of  Israel,  the 
Messiah  of  the  nations,  it  is  destined  to  become  the  lode¬ 
star  of  all  nations  and  all  religions.  This  is  the  kernel  of 
the  Jewish  doctrine  concerning  the  Messiah. 

2.  This  Messianic  hope,  on  closer  analysis,  reveals  two 
elements,  both  of  prophetic  origin :  one  national,  the  other 
religious  and  universal.  The  latter  is  the  logical  outcome 
of  the  monotheism  of  the  great  exilic  seer,  who  based  his 
stirring  pictures  of  the  glorious  future  of  Israel  upon  the  all- 
encompassing  knowledge  of  God  possessed  by  the  Chosen 
People.  The  classic  expression  of  this  hope  appears  in 
Isaiah  II,  1-4,  and  Micah  IV,  1-14 :  “And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  the  end  of  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord’s 
house  shall  be  established  as  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and 
shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills ;  and  all  nations  shall  flow 
unto  it.  And  many  peoples  shall  go  and  say:  ‘Come  ye 
and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house 
of  the  God  of  Jacob ;  and  He  will  teach  us  of  His  ways,  and 
we  will  walk  in  His  paths,’  for  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the 
law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  He  shall 
judge  between  the  nations,  and  shall  decide  for  many  peoples ; 
and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and 
their  spears  into  pruning-hooks ;  nation  shall  not  lift  up 
sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more.” 
We  note,  indeed,  that  no  reference  to  the  Messiah  or  a  king 
of  the  house  of  David  appears  either  in  this  passage  or  any 
of  the  prophecies  of  Deutero-Isaiah.  Justice  and  peace  for 
all  humanity  are  expected  through  the  reign  of  God  alone. 
The  specific  Messianic  character  of  this  prophecy  took  shape 
only  in  its  association  with  the  older  national  hope,  voiced 
by  the  prophet  Isaiah. 


38° 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


3.  The  real  Messianic  hope  involved  the  reestablishment 
of  the  throne  of  David,  and  was  expressed  most  perfectly 
in  the  words  of  Isaiah :  “And  there  shall  come  forth  a  shoot 
out  of  the  stock  of  Jesse,  and  a  twig  shall  grow  forth  out  of 
his  roots.  And  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him, 
the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel 
and  might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the 
Lord.  And  his  delight  shall  be  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord ;  and 
he  shall  not  judge  after  the  sight  of  his  eyes,  neither  decide 
after  the  hearing  of  his  ears ;  but  with  righteousness  shall 
he  judge  the  poor,  and  decide  with  equity  for  the  meek  of 
the  land ;  and  he  shall  smite  the  land  with  the  rod  of  his 
mouth,  and  with  the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  the  wicked. 
And  righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faith¬ 
fulness  the  girdle  of  his  reins.  And  the  wolf  shall  dwell  with 
the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with  the  kid;  and 
the  calf  and  the  young  lion  and  the  fatling  together ;  and  a 
little  child  shall  lead  them.  .  .  .  They  shall  not  hurt  nor 
destroy  in  all  My  holy  mountain;  for  the  earth  shall  be 
full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the 
sea.”  1 

This  pattern  of  the  ideal  ruler  may  have  been  modeled 
after  some  ancient  Babylonian  formula  for  the  adoration  of 
kings,  as  has  been  asserted  of  late;  and  the  same  may  be 
true  of  the  mystic  titles  given  by  Isaiah  to  the  royal  heir : 
“Wonderful  counselor,  divine  hero,  father  of  spoil,  prince 
of  peace.”  2  When  the  little  kingdom  of  Judaea  fell,  the 
prospect  of  a  realization  of  the  great  prophetic  vision  seemed 
gone  forever.  Therefore  the  exiles  in  Babylon  fastened  their 
hopes  so  much  more  firmly  on  the  “Shoot,”  particularly  on 
Zerubabel  (“the  seed  born  in  Babylon”),  the  object  of  the 

1  Isa.  XI,  1-8. 

2  Isa.  IX,  5 ;  the  note  in  the  new  Jewish  translation  takes  the  words  in  a 
different  sense. 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


381 

fondest  hopes  of  the  later  prophets.1  When  he,  too,  dis¬ 
appointed  their  expectations,  probably  due  to  Persian  inter¬ 
ference,  they  transferred  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  more 
and  more  into  the  realm  of  miracle,  and  popular  fancy  dwelt 
fondly  on  his  appearance  as  God’s  champion  against  the 
hosts  of  heathendom  (Gog  and  Magog).2 

4.  The  conception  of  the  priest-prophet  Ezekiel  is  very 
significant  in  this  connection ;  for  him  the  kingdom  of  Israel’s 
God  could  only  be  established  by  the  restoration  of  the 
throne  of  David,  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  and  by  the  utter 
destruction  of  the  hosts  of  heathendom,  who  were  hostile  to 
both  God  and  Israel.  In  accordance  with  this  hope  the 
author  of  the  second  Psalm  presents  a  dramatic  picture  of 
the  Messiah  triumphing  over  the  heathen  nations,  a  picture 
which  became  typical  for  all  the  future.  “Why  are  the 
nations  in  an  uproar?  And  why  do  the  peoples  mutter  in 
vain?  The  kings  of  the  earth  stand  up,  and  the  rulers  take 
counsel  together  against  the  Lord,  and  against  His  anointed : 
‘Let  us  break  their  bands  asunder,  and  cast  away  their  cords 
from  us.’  He  that  sitteth  in  heaven  laugheth,  the  Lord  hath 
them  in  derision.  Then  will  He  speak  unto  them  in  His 
wrath,  and  affright  them  in  His  sore  displeasure:  ‘Truly 
it  is  I  that  have  established  My  king  upon  Zion,  My  holy 
mountain.’  I  will  tell  of  the  decree  :  The  Lord  said  unto  me : 
‘Thou  art  My  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  Ask  of 
Me,  and  I  will  give  the  nations  for  thine  inheritance,  and 
the  ends  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession.  Thou  shalt  break 
them  with  a  rod  of  iron ;  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces 
like  a  potter’s  vessel.’  .  .  .”  Henceforth  the  conception  of 
the  Messiah  alternated  between  Isaiah’s  prince  of  peace 

1  Jer.  ‘XXIII,  5;  XXXIII,  15;  Zech,  III,  8;  VI,  12;  see  Sellin,  1.  c. 
Compare  Ps.  LXXX,  16  f. ;  LXXXIV,  10;  LXXXIX,  39,  52;  CXXX,  10; 
see  Ewald’s  commentary. 

2  Ezek.  XXXVIII-XXXIX;  Sibyll.  Ill,  663;  J.  E.,  art.  Gog  u.  Magog; 
Bousset,  1.  c.,  251  f. 


382  JEWISH  THEOLOGY 

and  the  world-conqueror  of  the  Psalmist.1  r/The  name  Messiah 
does  not  occur  in  Scripture  in  the  absolute  form,  but  always 
occurs  in  the  construct  with  JHVH  or  a  pronoun,  signifying 
“the  Anointed  of  the  Lord.”  Accordingly,  it  expresses  the 
relation  of  the  Anointed  to  God,  his  sovereign,  in  striking 
contrast  to  the  heathen  kings  who  themselves  claimed  adora¬ 
tion  as  gods.  The  very  name  Messiah  excludes  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  deification.  The  term  Messiah  was  used  with  the 
article  only  in  much  later  times,  ha  Meshiah ,  or  in  the  Ara¬ 
maic,  Meskiha,  from  which  we  derive  the  name,  Messiah./ 

5.  In  the  course  of  time,  however,  as  the  people  waited  in 
vain  for  a  redeemer,  the  expected  Messiah  was  lifted  more 
and  more  into  the  realm  of  the  ideal.  The  belief  took  hold 
especially  in  the  inner  circle  of  the  pious  (Hasidim)  that  the 
Messiah  was  hidden  somewhere,  protected  by  God,  to  appear 
miraculously  after  having  vanquished  the  hostile  powers. 
The  Essenes,  the  representatives  of  the  secret  lore,  developed 
this  conception  in  the  Apocalyptic  writings,  thus  giving  the 
Messiah  a  certain  cosmic  or  supernatural  character.  They 
probably  modeled  their  thoughts  upon  the  Zoroastrian 
system,  where  Soshiosh,  the  world  savior,  would  appear  in 
the  last  millennium  as  the  messenger  of  Ormuzd  to  destroy 
forever  the  kingdom  of  evil  and  establish  the  dominion  of 
the  good.1 2  Thus,  when  Isaiah  says  of  the  Messiah  that 
“by  the  breath  of  his  mouth  he  shall  slay  the  wicked,”  this 
is  referred  to  the  principle  of  evil,  Satan  or  Belial,  who  was 
sometimes  actually  identified  with  the  Persian  Ahriman.3 
Moreover,  after  the  Persian  system,  the  whole  process  of 
history  was  divided  into  six  millenniums  of  strife  between 
the  principle  of  good  and  evil,  represented  by  the  Torah 


1  For  the  prince  of  peace,  see,  for  example,  Zech.  IX,  9. 

2  See  Bousset,  1.  c.,  255-261. 

3  See  Targum  to  Isa.  XI,  4,  where  the  older  Mss.  read  Arimalyus,  later  on 
corrupted  into  Armillus.  See  Bousset,  1.  c.,  589. 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


383 


and  the  ungodliness  of  the  world,  and  a  seventh  millennium, 
the  kingdom  of  God  or  the  Messianic  age.  The  dates  of 
these  were  calculated  upon  the  basis  of  the  book  of  Daniel, 
with  its  four  world-kingdoms  and  mysterious  numbers.1 

6.  The  Biblical  passages  which  refer  to  “the  end  of  days” 
were  also  connected  with  the  advent  of  the  Messianic  age, 
and  the  so-called  eschatological  writings  speak  of  fixed  periods 
following  one  another.  In  accordance  with  certain  prophetic 
hints,  they  expected  first  the  “ birth- throes ”  2  or  “vestiges” 
of  the  Messianic  age,  a  great  physical  and  moral  crisis  with 
the  turmoil  of  nature,  plagues,  and  moral  degeneracy.  Before 
the  Messiah  would  suddenly  appear  from  his  hiding  place, 
the  prophet  Elijah  was  to  return  from  heaven,  whither  he 
had  ascended  in  a  fiery  chariot.  But,  while  he  had  lived 
in  implacable  wrath  against  idolaters,  he  was  now  to  come 
as  a  messenger  of  peace,  reconciling  the  hearts  of  Israel  with 
God  and  with  one  another,  preparing  the  way  to  repentance, 
and  thus  to  the  redemption  and  reunion  of  Israel.3  The 
next  stage  is  the  gathering  together  of  Israel  from  all  corners 
of  the  earth  to  the  holy  land  under  the  leadership  of  the 
Messiah,  summoned  by  the  blast  of  the  heavenly  trumpet.4 
Then  begins  that  gigantic  warfare  on  the  holy  soil  between 
the  hosts  of  Israel  and  the  vast  forces  of  heathendom  led 
by  the  half-mystic  powers  of  Gog  and  Magog,  a  conflict 
which,  according  to  Ezekiel,  is  to  last  for  seven  years  and 
to  end  with  the  annihilation  of  the  powers  of  evil.  Before 
the  real  Messiah,  the  son  of  David,  appears  in  victory,  another 
Messiah  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  is  to  fall  in  battle,  according 
to  a  belief  dating  from  the  second  century  and  possibly  con- 

1  Dan.  II ;  VII ;  IX ;  see  J.  E.,  art.  Eschatology. 

2  Sota  IX,  15;  Enoch  XCIX,  4;  C,  1 ;  Matt.  XXIV,  8;  Bousset, 
1.  c.,  286. 

3  Mai.  Ill,  23;  B.  Sira  XL VIII,  10  f. ;  Sibyll.  II,  187. 

4  Isa.  XXVII,  13;  B.  Sira  XXXVI,  13;  Tobit  XIII,  13;  Enoch  XC,  32; 
II  Macc.  II,  18;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  271. 


3^4 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


nected  with  the  Bar  Kochba  war.1  In  another  tradition, 
probably  older,  the  true  Messiah  himself  is  to  suffer  and 
die.2  At  all  events,  he  must  destroy  Rome,  the  fourth  world- 
kingdom.  But  he  is  also  to  slay  the  arch-fiend  Ahriman, 
afterwards  known  as  Armillus.  Moreover,  he  will  redeem 
the  dead  from  Sheol,  as  he  possesses  the  key  to  open  all  the 
graves  of  the  holy  land,  and  thus  all  the  sons  of  Israel  will 
partake  in  the  glory  of  his  kingdom.  Then  at  last  the  city 
of  Jerusalem  will  arise  in  splendor,  built  of  gold  and  precious 
stones,  the  marvel  of  the  world,  and  in  its  midst  the  Temple, 
a  structure  of  surpassing  magnificence.  The  holy  vessels 
of  the  tabernacle,  hidden  for  ages  in  the  wilderness,  will 
appear,  and  the  nations  will  offer  the  wealth  of  the  whole 
earth  as  their  tribute  to  the  Messiah.  All  will  practice 
righteousness  and  piety,  and  will  be  rewarded  by  bliss  and 
numerous  posterity.3 

Opinions  differ  widely  as  to  the  duration  of  the  Messianic 
age.  They  range  from  forty  to  four  hundred  years,  and 
again  from  three  generations  to  a  full  millennium.4  This 
difference  is  partly  caused  by  the  distinction  between  the 
national  hope,  with  the  temporary  welfare  of  the  people  of 
Israel,  and  the  religious  hope  concerning  the  divine  kingdom, 
which  is  to  last  forever.  A  very  late  rabbinic  belief  holds 
that  the  Messiah  will  be  able  to  give  a  new  law  and  even  to 
abrogate  Mosaic  prohibitions.5 

7.  At  any  rate,  no  complete  system  of  eschatology  existed 
during  the  Talmudic  age,  as  the  views  of  the  various  apoc¬ 
alyptic  writers  were  influenced  by  the  changing  events  of 
the  time  and  the  new  environments,  with  their  constant 
influence  upon  popular  belief.  A  certain  uniformity,  indeed, 
existed  in  the  fundamental  ideas.  The  Messianic  hope  in 

1  See  Chap.  LII.  2 IV  Ezra  VIII,  28. 

3  Sanh.  96  f. ;  J.  E.,  art.  Eschatology;  Bousset,  1.  c. 

4  Sanh.  97  a,  b,  99.  5  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  CXLVI,  4 ;  see  Buber’s  note. 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


385 


its  national  character  includes  always  the  reunion  of  all 
Israel  under  a  victorious  ruler  of  the  house  of  David,  who 
shall  destroy  all  hostile  powers  and  bring  an  era  of  supreme 
prosperity  and  happiness  as  well  as  of  peace  and  good-will 
among  men.  The  Haggadists  indulged  also  in  dreams  of 
the  marvelous  fertility  of  the  soil  of  Palestine  in  the  Messianic 
time,1  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  the  holy  land. 
But  in  Judaism  such  views  could  never  become  dogmas,  as 
they  did  in  the  Church,  even  though  they  were  common  in 
both  the  older  and  younger  Haggadah.  These  national 
expectations  were  expressed  in  the  liturgy  by  the  Eighteen 
Benedictions,  composed  by  the  founders  of  the  Synagogue, 
the  so-called  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue ;  here  the  prayers 
for  “the  gathering  of  the  dispersed”  and  the  “destruction 
of  the  kingdom  of  Insolence”  precede  those  for  the  “re¬ 
building  of  Jerusalem  and  the  restoration  of  the  throne  of 
David.”  But  the  mystic  speculations  on  the  origin,  activity, 
and  sojourn  of  the  Messiah,  which  were  a  favorite  theme  of 
the  apocalyptic  writers  and  the  Haggadists  during  the  pre- 
Christian  and  the  first  Christian  centuries,  gave  way  to  a 
more  sober  mode  of  thought,  in  the  disappointment  that 
followed  the  collapse  of  the  great  Messianic  movements. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  Church  deified  its  Messiah  and  thus 
relapsed  into  paganism ;  on  the  other,  Bar  Kochba,  “  the 
son  of  the  star,”  whom  the  leading  Jewish  masters  of  the 
law  actually  considered  the  Messiah  who  would  free  them 
from  Rome,  proved  to  be  a  “star  of  ill-luck”  to  the  Jewish 
people.2  “Like  one  who  wanders  in  the  dark  night,  now 
and  then  kindling  a  light  to  brighten  up  his  path,  only  to 
have  it  again  and  again  extinguished  by  the  wind,  until  at 
last  he  resolves  to  wait  patiently  for  the  break  of  day  when 
he  will  no  longer  require  a  light,”  so  were  the  people  of  Israel 

1  Ket.  m-112;  comp.  Irenaeus :  Adver.  Haeres.  V,  32. 

2  See  Ekah.  R.  II,  2 ;  J.  E.,  art.  Bar  Kokba. 


386 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


with  their  would-be  deliverers,  who  appeared  from  time  to 
time  to  delude  their  hopes,  until  they  exclaimed  at  last : 
“In  Thy  light  alone,  O  Lord,  we  behold  light.”1  Samuel 
the  Babylonian,  of  the  third  century,  in  opposition  to  the 
Messianic  visionaries  of  his  time,  declared:  “The  Messianic 
age  differs  from  the  present  in  nothing  except  that  Israel 
will  throw  off  the  yoke  of  the  nations  and  regain  its  political 
independence.” 2  Another  sage  said:  “May  the  curse  of 
heaven  fall  upon  those  who  calculate  the  date  of  the  advent 
of  the  Messiah  and  thus  create  political  and  social  unrest 
among  the  people!”3  A  third  declared:  “The  Messiah 
will  appear  when  nobody  expects  him.”  4  Most  remarkable 
of  all  is  the  bold  utterance  of  Rabbi  Hillel  of  the  fourth 
century,  a  lineal  descendant  of  the  great  master  Hillel  and 
the  originator  of  the  present  Jewish  calendar  system.  In  all 
likelihood  many  of  his  contemporaries  were  busy  calculating 
the  advent  of  the  Messianic  time  according  to  the  number 
of  Jubilees  in  the  world-eras,  whereupon  he  said:  “Israel 
need  not  await  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  as  Isaiah’s  proph¬ 
ecy  was  fulfilled  by  the  appearance  of  King  Hezekiah.”  5 
8.  Throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  when  the  political  or 
national  hopes  rose  high,  we  find  various  Messianic  move¬ 
ments  in  both  East  and  West  revived  by  religious  aspirations. 
But  Maimonides,  the  great  rationalist,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Mishnah  and  in  his  Code,  formulated  a  Messianic 
belief  which  was  quite  free  from  mystical  and  supernatural 
elements.  His  twelfth  article  of  faith  declares  that  “the 
Jew,  unless  he  wishes  to  forfeit  his  claim  to  eternal  life  by 
denial  of  his  faith,  must,  in  acceptance  of  the  teachings  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets  down  to  Malachi,  believe  that  the 
Messiah  will  issue  forth  from  the  house  of  David  in  the 
person  of  a  descendant  of  Solomon,  the  only  legitimate  king ; 


1  Pesik.  144  a,  b. 
4  Sanh.  97  a. 


3  Sanh.  97  b. 
5  Sanh.  98  b. 


2  Ber.  34  b. 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


387 


and  he  shall  far  excel  all  rulers  in  history  by  his  reign,  glorious 
in  justice  and  peace.  Neither  impatience  nor  deceptive 
calculation  of  the  time  of  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  should 
shatter  this  belief.  Still,  notwithstanding  the  majesty  and 
wisdom  of  the  Messiah,  he  must  be  regarded  as  a  mortal 
being  like  any  other  and  only  as  the  restorer  of  the  Davidic 
dynasty.  He  will  die  and  leave  a  son  as  his  successor,  who 
will  in  his  turn  die  and  leave  the  throne  to  his  heir.  Nor  will 
there  be  any  material  change  in  the  order  of  things  in  the 
whole  system  of  nature  and  human  life ;  accordingly  Isaiah’s 
picture  of  the  living  together  of  lamb  and  wolf  cannot  be 
taken  literally,  nor  any  of  the  Haggadic  sayings  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Messianic  time.  We  are  only  to  believe  in  the 
coming  of  Elijah  as  a  messenger  of  peace  and  the  forerunner 
of  the  Messiah,  and  also  in  the  great  decisive  battle  with 
the  hosts  of  heathendom  embodied  in  Gog  and  Magog, 
through  whose  defeat  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah  will  be 
permanently  established.”  “The  Messianic  kingdom  itself,” 
continues  Maimonides  with  reference  to  the  utterance  of 
Samuel  quoted  above,  “is  to  bring  the  Jewish  nation  its 
political  independence,  but  not  the  subjection  of  all  the  heathen 
nations,  nor  merely  material  prosperity  and  sensual  pleasure, 
but  an  era  of  general  affluence  and  peace,  enabling  the  Jewish 
people  to  devote  their  lives  without  care  or  anxiety  to  the 
study  of  the  Torah  and  universal  wisdom,  so  that  by  their 
teachings  they  may  lead  all  mankind  to  the  knowledge  of 
God  and  make  them  also  share  in  the  eternal  bliss  of  the 
world  to  come.”  1 

9.  Against  this  rationalized  hope  for  the  Messiah,  which 
merges  the  national  expectation  into  the  universal  hope  for 
the  kingdom  of  God,  strong  objections  were  raised  by  Abra¬ 
ham  ben  David  of  Posquieres,  the  mystic,  a  fierce  opponent 

1  Commentary  to  Sanh.  X;  Yad,  H.  Melakim,  XI-XII;  H.  Teshubah 
VIII-IX. 


388 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


of  Maimonides,  who  referred  to  various  Biblical  and  Tal- 
mudical  passages'  in  contradiction  to  this  view.1  On  the 
other  hand,  Joseph  Albo,  the  popular  philosopher,  who  was 
trained  by  his  public  debates  against  the  representatives  of 
the  Church,  emphasized  especially  the  rational  character 
of  the  Jewish  theology,  and  declared  that  the  Messianic  hope 
cannot  be  counted  among  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Judaism,  or  else  Rabbi  Hillel  could  never  have  rejected 
it  so  boldly.2 

On  this  point  we  must  consider  the  fine  observation  of 
Rashi  that  Hillel  denied  only  a  personal  Messiah,  but  not 
the  coming  of  a  Messianic  age,  assuming  that  God  himself 
will  redeem  Israel  and  be  acknowledged  everywhere  as  Ruler 
of  the  world.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  too  much  difference  of 
opinion  existed  among  the  Tanaim  and  Amoraim  on  the 
personality  of  the  Messiah  and  the  duration  of  his  reign  to 
admit  of  a  definite  article  of  faith  on  the  question.  The 
expected  Messiah,  the  heir  of  the  Davidic  throne,  naturally 
embodied  the  national  hope  of  the  Jewish  people  in  their 
dispersion,  when  all  looked  to  Palestine  as  their  land  and 
to  Jerusalem  as  their  political  center  and  rallying  point  in 
days  to  come.  Traditional  Judaism,  awaiting  the  restoration 
of  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  cult  as  the  condition  for  the  return 
of  the  Shekinah  to  Zion,  was  bound  to  persist  in  its  belief 
in  a  personal  Messiah  who  would  restore  the  Temple  and 
its  service. 

io.  A  complete  change  in  the  religious  aspiration  of  the 
Jew  was  brought  about  by  the  transformation  of  his  political 
status  and  hopes  in  the  nineteenth  century.  The  new  era 
witnessed  his  admission  in  many  lands  to  full  citizenship  on  an 
equality  with  his  fellow-citizens  of  other  faiths.  He  was  no 
longer  distinguished  from  them  in  his  manner  of  speech  and 
dress,  nor  in  his  mode  of  education  and  thought ;  he  therefore 
1  Notes  of  R.  A.  B.  D.  to  Maimuni.  2  Ikkarim,  IV,  42. 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


389 


necessarily  identified  himself  completely  with  the  nation 
whose  language  and  literature  had  nurtured  his  mind,  and 
whose  political  and  social  destinies  he  shared  with  true  pa¬ 
triotic  fervor.  He  stood  apart  from  the  rest  only  by  virtue 
of  his  religion,  the  great  spiritual  heritage  of  his  hoary  past. 
Consequently  the  hope  voiced  in  the  Synagogal  liturgy  for 
a  return  to  Palestine,  the  formation  of  a  Jewish  State  under 
a  king  of  the  house  of  David,  and  the  restoration  of  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  cult,  no  longer  expressed  the  views  of  the  Jew  in  Western 
civilization.  The  prayer  for  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  restoration  of  the  Temple  with  its  priestly  cult  could 
no  longer  voice  his  religious  hope.  Thus  the  leaders  of 
Reform  Judaism  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
declared  themselves  unanimously  opposed  to  retaining  the 
belief  in  a  personal  Messiah  and  the  political  restoration  of 
Israel,  either  in  doctrine  or  in  their  liturgy.1  They  accen¬ 
tuated  all  the  more  strongly  Israel’s  hope  for  a  Messianic 
age,  a  time  of  universal  knowledge  of  God  and  love  of  man, 
so  intimately  interwoven  with  the  religious  mission  of  the 
Jewish  people.  Harking  back  to  the  suffering  Servant  of 
the  Lord  in  Deutero-Isaiah,  they  transferred  the  title  of 
Messiah  to  the  Jewish  nation.  Reform  Judaism  has  thus 
accepted  the  belief  that  Israel,  the  suffering  Messiah  of  the 
centuries,  shall  at  the  end  of  days  become  the  triumphant 
Messiah  of  the  nations.2 

11.  This  view  taken  by  reform  Judaism  is  the  logical  out¬ 
come  of  the  political  and  social  emancipation  of  the  Jew  in 
western  Europe  and  America.  Naturally,  it  had  no  appeal 
to  the  Jew  in  the  Eastern  lands,  where  he  was  kept  apart  by 
mental  training,  social  habits  and  the  discrimination  of  the 

1  See  Philipson  :  The  Reform  Movement  in  Judaism,  246  f. 

2  See  Einhorn :  Sinai  I,  133;  Leopold  Stein:  Schrift  des  Lsbens,  320,  336. 
For  the  term  Messiah  coinp.  Ps.  LV,  15;  Hab.  Ill,  13;  also  Ps.  XXVIII, 
8;  LXXXIV,  10;  LXXXIX,  39,  52. 


390 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


law,  so  that  he  regarded  himself  as  a  member  of  a  different 
nationality  in  every  sense.  Palestine  remained  the  object 
of  his  hope  and  longing  in  both  his  social  and  religious  life. 
When  modern  ideas  of  life  began  to  transform  the  religious 
views  and  habits  in  many  a  quarter,  and  terrible  persecutions 
again  aroused  the  longing  of  the  unfortunate  sufferers  for  a 
return  to  the  land  of  their  fathers,  the  term  Zionism  was 
coined,  and  the  movement  rapidly  spread.  It  expressed  the 
purely  national  aims  of  the  Jewish  people,  disregarding  the 
religious  aspirations  always  heretofore  connected  with  the 
Messianic  hope.  This  term  has  since  become  the  watchword 
of  all  those  who  hope  for  a  political  restoration  of  the  Jewish 
people  on  Palestinian  soil,  as  well  as  of  others  whose  longings 
are  of  a  more  cultural  nature.  Both  regard  the  Jewish  people 
as  a  nation  like  any  other,  denying  to  it  the  specific  character 
of  a  priest-people  and  a  holy  nation  with  a  religious  mission 
for  humanity,  which  has  been  assigned  to  it  at  the  very 
beginning  of  its  history  and  has  served  to  preserve  it  through 
the  centuries.  On  this  account  Zionism,  whether  political 
or  cultural,  can  have  no  place  in  Jewish  theology.  Quite 
different  is  the  attitude  of  religious  Zionism  which  emphasizes 
the  ancient  hopes  and  longings  for  the  restoration  of  the 
Jewish  Temple  and  State  in  connection  with  the  nationalistic 
movement. 

12.  Political  Zionism  owes  its  origin  to  the  wave  of  Anti- 
Semitism  which  rose  as  a  counter-movement  to  the  emanci¬ 
pation  of  the  Jew,  that  alienated  many  of  the  household  of 
Israel  from  their  religion.  Thus  it  has  the  merit  of  awaken¬ 
ing  many  Jews  upon  whom  the  ancestral  faith  had  lost  its 
hold  to  a  sense  of  love  and  loyalty  to  the  Jewish  past.  In 
many  it  has  aroused  a  laudable  zeal  for  the  study  of  Jewish 
history  and  literature,  which  should  bring  them  a  deeper 
insight  into,  and  closer  identification  with,  the  historic  char¬ 
acter  of  Israel,  the  suffering  Messiah  of  the  nations,  and 


THE  MESSIANIC  HOPE 


391 


thus  in  time  transform  the  national  Jew  into  a  religious  Jew. 
The  study  of  Israel’s  mighty  past  will,  it  is  hoped,  bring  to 
them  the  conviction  that  the  power,  the  hope  and  the  refuge 
of  Israel  is  in  its  God,  and  not  in  any  territorial  possession. 
We  require  a  regeneration,  not  of  the  nation,  but  of  the 
faith  of  Israel,  which  is  its  soul. 


CHAPTER  LIV 


Resurrection,  a  National  Hope 

1.  The  Jewish  belief  in  resurrection  is  intimately  bound 
up  with  the  hope  for  the  restoration  of  the  Israelitish  nation 
on  its  own  soil,  and  consequently  rather  national ;  indeed, 
originally  purely  local  and  territorial.1  True,  the  rabbis 
justified  their  belief  in  resurrection  by  such  Scriptural  verses 
as:  “I  kill  and  I  make  alive”  2  and  “The  Lord  killeth,  and 
maketh  alive ;  He  bringeth  down  to  the  grave,  and  bringeth 
up.”  3  Founded  on  such  passages,  the  belief  would  have  to 
include  all  men,  and  could  be  confined  neither  to  the  Jewish 
people  nor  to  the  land  of  Judea.  However,  we  find  no  trace 
of  such  a  belief  in  the  entire  Bible  save  for  two  late  post- 
exilic  passages  4  which  are  in  fact  apocalyptic,  being  based 
upon  earlier  prophecies,  and  themselves,  in  turn,  basic  to 
the  later  dogma  of  the  Pharisees. 

2.  The  picture  of  a  resurrection  was  first  drawn  by  the 
prophet  Hosea,  who  applied  it  to  Israel.  In  his  distress 
over  the  destiny  of  his  people  he  says:  “Come,  and  let  us 
return  unto  the  Lord ;  for  He  hath  torn,  and  He  will  heal 
us,  He  hath  smitten,  and  He  will  bind  us  up.  After  two 
days  will  He  revive  us,  on  the  third  day  He  will  raise  us  up, 
that  we  may  live  in  His  presence.”  5  Ezekiel’s  vision  of  the 
dry  bones  which  rose  to  a  new  life  under  the  mighty  sway 
of  the  spirit  of  God,6  gave  more  definite  shape  to  the  picture, 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Resurrection.  2  Deut.  XXXII,  39 ;  see  Sifre  ad  loc. 

3 1  Sam.  II,  6;  see  Midr.  Sh’muel,  ad  loc. 

4  Isa.  XXVI,  19;  Dan.  XII,  2. 

B  Hosea  VI,  1-2 ;  comp.  XIII,  14.  6  Ezek.  XXXVII,  1-14. 

392 


RESURRECTION,  A  NATIONAL  HOPE 


393 


although  in  the  form  of  allegory.  As  the  prophet  himself 
says,  he  aimed  to  describe  the  resurrection  of  Judah  and 
Israel  from  their  grave  of  exile.  The  obscure  Messianic 
prophecy  in  Isaiah,  chapters  XXIV  to  XXVII,  strikes  a 
new  note.  First  the  author  deals  with  the  terrible  slaughter 
which  God  will  inflict  upon  the  heathen,  after  which  “He 
will  swallow  up  death  forever ;  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe 
away  tears  from  off  all  faces ;  and  the  reproach  of  His  people 
will  He  take  away  from  off  all  the  earth.”  1  Finally,  when 
the  oppressors  of  Israel  are  completely  annihilated,  exclaims 
the  seer:  “Thy  dead  shall  live,  thy  dead  bodies  shall  arise 
—  awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust  —  for  thy  dew 
is  a  fructifying  dew,  and  the  earth  shall  bring  to  life  the 
shades.”  2  Daniel  speaks  in  a  similar  vein:  “And  many 
of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some 
to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  reproaches  and  everlasting 
abhorrence.”  3 

3.  In  this  hope  for  resurrection  at  the  end  of  days  the 
leading  thought  is  that  the  prophecies  which  have  been 
unfulfilled  during  the  lifetime  of  the  pious,  and  particularly 
the  martyrs,  shall  be  realized  in  the  world  to  come.4  In  the 
oldest  apocalyptic  writings  this  life  of  the  future  is  still  con¬ 
ceived  as  earthly  bliss,  inasmuch  as  the  writers  think  only 
of  the  Messianic  time  of  national  glory,  depicted  in  such 
glowing  colors  by  the  prophets.  Unbounded  richness  of  the 
soil  and  numerous  offspring,  abundant  treasures  brought 
by  remote  nations  and  their  rulers,  peace  and  happiness 
far  and  wide  —  such  are  the  characteristics  of  the  Messianic 

1  Isa.  XXV,  8. 

2  Isa.  XXVI,  19.  Instead  of  “my  dead  bodies”  in  the  new  Bible  translation, 
read  “thy  dead,”  and  instead  of  “light”  translate  oroth,  after  II  Kings  IV,  39, 
“  herb,”  which  means  “dew  of  revival” ;  the  last  is  also  a  rabbinic  term. 

3  Dan.  XII,  2. 

4  See  II  Macc.  VII,  9-36;  XII,  43;  XIV,  46;  Sibyll.  II,  47;  Midr.  Teh. 
Ps.  XVII,  13. 


394 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


age.  In  order  that  the  dead  may  share  in  all  this,  it  is  to  be 
preceded  by  the  resurrection  and  the  great  Day  of  Judgment 
in  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  or  Gehinnom  (Gehenna),  where 
the  righteous  are  to  be  singled  out  to  participate  in  the  realm 
of  the  Messiah.1  As  a  national  prospect  the  Messianic 
hope  was  based  upon  the  passage  in  Deutero-Isaiah :  “Thy 
people  also  shall  be  all  righteous,  they  shall  inherit  the  land 
forever.”  2  Consequently  an  ancient  Mishnah  taught  that 
“All  Israel  shall  have  a  share  in  the  world  to  come.”  3  In 
fact,  the  term  “inherit  the  land”  was  used  as  late  as  the 
Mishnah  to  express  the  idea  of  sharing  in  the  future  life ;  so 
also  in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  resurrection  was  ex¬ 
pected  before  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.4 

4.  The  logical  assumption  was,  accordingly,  that  only 
the  dead  of  the  holy  land  should  enjoy  the  resurrection. 
The  prophetic  verses  were  cited:  “I  will  set  glory  in  the 
land  of  the  living,”  5  and  “He  that  giveth  breath  to  the 
people  upon  it,  and  spirit  to  them  that  walk  therein,”  6  and 
were  interpreted  in  the  sense  that  God  would  restore  the 
breath  of  life  only  to  those  buried  in  the  holy  land.7  Like¬ 
wise  the  verse  of  the  Psalmist,  “I  shall  walk  before  the  Lord 
in  the  land  of  the  living,”  was  referred  to  Palestine,  as  the 
land  where  the  dead  shall  awaken  to  a  new  life.8  Hence 
the  rabbis  held  the  strange  belief  that  when  the  great  heavenly 
trumpet  is  sounded  to  summon  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth  to  the  holy  land,9  those  who  have  been 
buried  outside  of  Palestine  must  pass  through  cavities  under 
the  earth,  until  they  reach  the  soil  where  the  miracle  of  the 

1  See  Joel  IV,  2 ;  Erub.  19  a,  ref.  to  Isa.  XXXI.,  9 ;  Enoch  XXVIII,  1. 

2  Isa.  LX,  21.  3  Sanh.  X,  1. 

4  Kid.  I,  10;  Matt.  V,  5,  ref.  to  Ps.  XXXVII,  n ;  Enoch  V,  7. 

6  Ezek.  XXVI,  20.  6  Isa.  XLII,  5.  7  Keth.  in  a. 

8  Ps.  CXVI,  9;  Yer.  Keth.  XII,  35  b;  Pesik.  R,  I,  2  b. 

9  Ber.  15  b;  Alphabet  d.  R.  Akiba  in  Jellinek,  B.  H.  Ill,  31;  Targura 

Yer.  to  Ex.  XX,  15;  I  Cor.  XV,  52. 


RESURRECTION,  A  NATIONAL  HOPE 


395 


resurrection  will  be  performed.1  It  has,  therefore,  become 
a  custom  of  the  pious  among  the  Orthodox  to  this  very  day, 
in  case  they  could  not  bury  the  dead  in  Palestine,  to  put 
dust  of  the  holy  land  beneath  their  head,  that  they  might 
arise  wherever  they  were  buried. 

5.  We  may  take  it  for  granted  that  this  naive  conception 
of  the  resurrection  could  not  be  permanent,  and  so  was 
modified  to  include  a  double  resurrection :  the  first,  national, 
to  usher  in  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  the  other,  universal, 
to  usher  in  the  everlasting  life  of  the  future.  The  former 
offered  scant  room  for  the  heathen  world,  at  best  only  for 
those  who  had  actually  joined  the  ranks  of  Judaism ;  the 
latter,  however,  included  the  last  judgment  for  all  souls 
and  thus  opened  the  way  for  the  salvation  of  the  righteous 
among  the  nations  as  well  as  the  people  of  Israel.  At  this 
point  the  conception  of  resurrection  led  to  higher  and  more 
spiritual  ideas,  as  has  been  shown  in  Chapter  XLIII. 

6.  However,  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
though  expressed  in  the  ancient  liturgy,  is  in  such  utter 
contradiction  to  our  entire  attitude  toward  both  science  and 
religion,  that  it  may  be  considered  obsolete  for  the  modern 
Jew.  Orthodoxy,  which  clings  to  it  in  formal  loyalty  to 
tradition,  regards  it  as  a  miracle  which  God  will  perform  in 
the  future,  exactly  like  the  many  Biblical  miracles  which 
defy  reason. 

7.  The  Zionist  movement  has  given  many  Jews  a  new 
attitude  toward  the  national  resurrection  of  Israel.  The 
nationalists  expect  the  Jewish  nation  to  awaken  from  a 
sleep  of  eighteen  hundred  years  to  new  greatness  in  its 
ancient  home,  not  as  a  religious,  but  as  a  political  body,  and 
in  renouncing  all  allegiance  to  the  priestly  mission  of  Israel  and 
its  ancestral  faith  they  are  as  remote  from  genuine  Orthodoxy 
as  from  Reform  Judaism.  They  assert  that  the  soul  of  the 

1  Keth.  1.  c. 


396 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Jewish  people  requires  a  national  body  rooted  in  its  ancient 
soil  in  order  that  it  may  fulfill  its  appointed  task  among  the 
nations ;  they  even  go  so  far  as  to  declare  all  the  achieve¬ 
ments  brought  about  by  the  assimilation  of  the  culture  of 
the  surrounding  nations  to  be  a  deterioration  of  the  genuine 
character  of  the  Jewish  nation.  The  fact  is  that,  as  in  nature 
there  is  nowhere  a  resurrection  of  the  dead  but  an  ever  re¬ 
newed  regeneration  of  life,  so  is  the  history  of  the  Jew  and 
of  Judaism  a  continuous  process  of  regeneration  manifested 
at  every  great  turning-point  of  history,  when  the  ideas  and 
cultural  elements  of  a  new  civilization  exert  their  powerful 
influence  on  life  and  thought.  There  never  was,  nor  will  be 
an  exclusively  Jewish  culture.  It  is  the  wondrous  power  of 
assimilation  of  the  Jew  which  ever  created  and  fashioned 
his  culture  anew.  That  which  constitutes  the  peculiarity 
of  the  Jew  and  his  life  force  is  his  religion  fostered  through 
the  ages,  preserved  amidst  the  most  antagonistic  influences 
and  hostile  environments,  and  ever  rejuvenated  by  its  unique 
universalistic  spirit  when  revived  by  contact  with  kindred 
movements.  To  maintain  and  propagate  this,  his  religion 
in  all  lands  and  amidst  all  civilizations,  is  the  task  assigned 
to  him  by  Providence,  until  God’s  Kingdom  has  been 
established  all  over  the  globe. 


CHAPTER  LV 


Israel  and  the  Heathen  Nations 

i.  As  there  is  but  one  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  universe, 
so  there  is  before  Him  but  one  humanity.  All  the  nations  are 
under  His  guidance,  while  Israel,  His  chosen  people,  points 
to  the  kingdom  of  God  which  is  to  embrace  them  all.  Israel 
was  called  the  “ first-born  son”  of  God  1  at  the  very  moment 
of  his  election,  implying  that  all  the  sons  of  men  are  His 
children.  All  of  them  are  links  in  the  divine  plan  of  salva¬ 
tion.  In  the  same  sense  God  spoke  through  Isaiah  :  “  Blessed 
be  Egypt,  My  people,  and  Assyria  the  work  of  My  hands, 
and  Israel  Mine  inheritance.”  2  As  the  first  page  of  Scripture 
assigns  a  common  origin  to  them  all  in  the  first  man,  so,  the 
prophets  tell  us,  at  the  end  of  time  they  shall  all  be  filled 
with  longing  for  the  one  God  and  form  with  Israel  one  com¬ 
munity  on  earth,  a  great  brotherhood  of  man  serving  the 
common  Father  above.3  Still,  the  actual  world  began,  not 
with  the  unity,  but  with  the  wide  diversity  and  dispersion 
of  mankind.  The  idea  of  the  unity  of  man  came  as  a  cor¬ 
ollary  to  the  kindred  conception  of  the  unity  of  God,  after  a 
long  historical  process. 

Just  as  the  creation  of  the  world  opens  with  the  separation 
of  light  from  darkness,  so  the  process  of  the  spiritual  and 
moral  development  of  mankind  begins,  according  to  the 
divine  plan  of  salvation,  with  the  separation  of  Israel  from 
the  heathen  nations.4  The  sharper  the  contrast  became 

1  Ex.  IV,  22.  2  Isa.  XIX,  25. 

s  Isa.  XLII,  4;  XLV,  23;  LI,  5;  Zeph.  Ill,  9;  Zech.  VIII,  22;  XIV,  9. 

4  Lev.  XX,  26;  Deut.  XX,  16-18;  comp.  Gen.  R.  II,  4;  III,  10. 

397 


398 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


between  the  spiritual  God  of  Israel  and  the  crude  sensual 
gods  of  heathendom,  the  wider  grew  the  chasm  between 
Judaism  and  heathenism,  between  Israel  and  the  nations. 
As  light  is  opposed  to  darkness,  so  Israel’s  truth  stood  op¬ 
posed  to  the  idolatry  of  the  nations,  until  Christianity  and 
Islam,  its  daughter-religions,  arose  between  the  two  ex¬ 
tremes.  Henceforth  Israel  waits  with  still  more  confidence 
for  the  age  whose  dawning  will  bring  the  full  knowledge  of 
God  to  all  mankind,  leading  the  world  from  the  night  of  error 
and  discord  to  the  noon-day  brightness  of  truth  and  unity, 
when  a  universal  monotheism  will  make  all  humanity  one. 

2.  Nothing  was  more  remote  from  ancient  Israel  than 
the  hatred  of  the  stranger  or  hostility  to  other  nations,  so 
often  attributed  to  it.1  In  the  time  of  the  patriarchs  and 
under  the  monarchy,  the  Hebrews  fostered  a  spirit  of  friendly 
intercourse  with  their  neighbors,  which  was  often  confirmed 
by  peaceful  alliances.2  Of  course,  during  war  time  the  spirit 
of  hostility  had  full  sway,  particularly  as  ancient  warfare 
imposed  a  relentless  ban  upon  both  booty  and  human  life 
among  the  vanquished.  But  even  then  the  kings  of  Israel 
were  called  compassionate  also  toward  their  enemies  when 
compared  with  other  rulers.3  Indeed,  the  code  of  Israel  is 
distinguished  from  all  other  codes  of  antiquity  by  mildness 
and  tender  compassion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  God  of 
justice,  revealed  through  Amos,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Habak- 
kuk,  punishes  Israel  and  the  nations  impartially  on  account 
of  their  moral  transgressions.4  He  avenges  acts  of  treachery, 
even  when  committed  against  pagan  tyrants.  “Shall  not 
the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  justly?”  5  Such  is  the  recurrent 
thought  that  governs  Israel,  demanding  the  same  standard 
of  judgment  for  Israelite  and  stranger. 

1  Weber,  1.  c.,  57-79.  2  Gen.  XIV,  13 ;  XXI,  32.  '  3 1  Kings  XX,  31. 

4  Amos  I-II ;  Isa.  XXIX-XXXIII;  Jer.  XXV  f.;  Hab.  I. 

5  Gen.  XVIII,  25. 


ISRAEL  AND  THE  HEATHEN  NATIONS 


399 


3.  The  simple  sense  of  justice  inherent  in  the  Jewish 
people  admits  so  little  difference  between  our  own  God- 
consciousness  and  that  of  others,  that  Scripture  represents 
the  Philistine  King  Abimelech  as  receiving  a  warning  from 
Abraham’s  God  JHVH.1  As  the  Bible  holds  up  Job,  the 
Bedouin  Sheik,  as  the  pattern  of  a  blameless  servant  of  God 
and  true  lover  of  mankind,2  so  the  Talmud  cites  the  Philistine 
Dama  ben  Nethina  as  an  example  of  filial  piety.3  Alto¬ 
gether,  the  merits  of  the  heathen  receive  their  full  measure 
of  appreciation  throughout  Jewish  literature,4  even  though  a 
narrow  dissenting  view  occurs  now  and  then.5 

4.  Still  from  the  very  beginning  a  tendency  to  relentless 
harshness  existed  in  one  direction,  when  the  pure  worship  of 
Israel’s  one  and  only  God  was  endangered.  The  early  Book  of 
the  Covenant  forbade  every  alliance  with  idolatrous  nations,6 
and  the  Deuteronomic  Code  made  this  more  stringent  by 
prohibiting  intermarriage  and  even  the  toleration  of  idolaters 
in  the  land,  lest  they  seduce  the  people  of  God  to  turn  away 
from  Him.7  The  Pharisean  leaders,  the  founders  of  Rabbinism, 
went  still  further  by  placing  an  interdict  upon  eating  with 
the  heathen  or  using  food  and  wine  prepared  by  them,  thus 
aiming  at  a  complete  separation  from  the  non- Jewish  world.8 

The  contrast  between  Judaism  and  heathenism  was  further 
heightened  by  the  view  of  the  prophets  and  psalmists,  show¬ 
ing  that  the  great  nations  were  the  very  embodiment  of 
idolatrous  iniquity,  murderous  violence  and  sexual  impurity, 
a  world  of  arrogance  and  pride,  defying  God  and  doomed 
to  perdition,  because  they  opposed  the  kingdom  of  God 
proclaimed  by  Israel.9  Henceforth  the  term  “the  nations” 

1  Gen.  XX,  3.  2  Job  XXXI. 

3  Kid.  31a.  4  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2;  B.  B.  10  b. 

B  See  Lazarus:  Ethics ,  49  and  appendix.  6  Ex.  XXIII,  32. 

7  Deut.  VII,  2;  XX,  16  f.  8  Shab.  27  b;  Jubil.  XXII,  16. 

9  Isa.  LX,  12;  LXIII,  6;  LXVI,  14  f. ;  Zech.  XIV,  2  f. ;  Joel  IV,  9-19; 
Jer.  X,  25;  Ps.  IX,  16,  18,  20;  X,  17. 


400 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


(goyim)  was  taken  by  the  religious  as  meaning  the  wicked 
ones,  who  would  not  be  able  to  stand  the  divine  judgment 
in  the  future  life,  but  would  go  down  to  Sheol,  or  Gehenna, 
to  fall  a  prey  to  everlasting  corruption,  to  the  fire  that  is 
never  quenched.1 

5.  Yet  such  a  wholesale  condemnation  could  not  long  be 
maintained ;  it  was  too  strongly  contradicted  in  principle 
by  the  prophets  and  Psalmists,  and  quite  as  much  by  the 
apocalyptic  writers  and  Haggadists  of  later  times.  The 
book  of  Jonah  testifies  that  Israel’s  God  sent  His  prophet 
to  the  heathen  of  Nineveh  to  exhort  them  to  repentance, 
that  they  might  obtain  forgiveness  and  salvation  like  re¬ 
pentant  Israel.2  Heathenism  is  doomed  to  perish,  not  the 
heathen ;  they  are  to  acknowledge  the  heavenly  Judge  in 
their  very  punishments  and  return  to  Him.  Such  is  the 
conclusion  of  all  the  exhortations  of  the  prophets  predicting 
punishment  to  the  nations.  Moreover,  those  heathen  who 
escape  the  doom  of  the  world-powers  are  to  proclaim  the 
mighty  deeds  of  the  Lord  to  the  utmost  lands.  Nay,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  grand  vision  of  the  exilic  seer,  among  the 
many  nations  that  shall  assemble  at  the  end  of  days  to  wor¬ 
ship  the  Lord  in  Zion,  select  ones  will  be  admitted  to  the 
priesthood  with  the  sons  of  Aaron.3  The  name  Hadrak, 
understood  as  “he  who  bringeth  back,”  suggested  itself 
to  the  rabbis  as  a  title  of  the  Messiah,  the  converter  of  the 
heathen  nations.4  So  in  both  the  Talmud  and  the  Sibylline 
books  5  Noah  is  represented  as  a  preacher  of  repentance  to 
the  nations  before  the  flood,  and  accordingly  the  latter  book 
adjures  the  Hellenic  world  to  repent  of  their  sinful  lives 
before  they  would  be  overwhelmed  by  the  flood  of  fire  at  the 
great  judgment  day.  In  the  same  spirit  the  Haggadists 
tell  that  God  sent  Balaam,  Job,  and  other  pious  men  as 

1  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2.  2  Jonah  III-IV.  3  Isa.  LXVI,  19-21. 

4  Zech.  IX,  1 ;  Cant.  R.  VII,  10.  6  Sanh.  108  a;  Sibyll.  I,  129  f. 


ISRAEL  AND  THE  HEATHEN  NATIONS 


401 


prophets  of  the  heathen  to  teach  them  the  way  of  repentance.1 
And  the  rabbis  actually  say  that,  if  the  heathen  nations  had 
not  refused  the  Torah  when  the  Lord  offered  it  to  them  at 
Sinai,  it  would  have  been  the  common  property  of  all  man¬ 
kind.2 

6.  The  leading  minds  of  Judaism  felt  only  pity  for  the 
blind  obstinacy  of  the  great  mass  of  heathen,  who  worshiped 
the  creatures  instead  of  the  Creator,  or  the  stars  of  heaven 
instead  of  Him  who  is  enthroned  above  the  skies.  They 
regarded  heathenism  either  as  evidence  of  spiritual  want 
and  weakness,  or  as  the  result  of  destiny.  Indeed,  the  words 
of  the  Deuteronomist  sound  like  an  echo  of  Babylonian 
fatalism  when  he  asserts  that  God  himself  assigned  to  the 
nations  the  worship  of  the  stars  as  their  inheritance.3  Later 
the  opinion  gained  ground  that  the  heathen  deities  were  real 
demons,  holding  dominion  over  the  nations  and  leading 
them  astray.4  The  exilic  seer  attacked  idolatry  most  vigor¬ 
ously  as  folly  and  falsehood,  and  thus  the  note  of  derision 
and  irony  is  struck  by  Deutero-Isaiah,  the  Psalms,  and  in 
many  of  the  propaganda  writings  of  the  Hellenistic  age,  in 
their  references  to  heathenism. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  significant  that  the  Palestinian 
sages  and  their  successors  condemned  heathenism  as  a  moral 
plague,  conducing  to  depravity,  lewdness,  and  bloodshed. 
They  regarded  the  powers  of  the  world,  especially  Edom 
(Rome),  as  being  under  the  dominion  of  the  Evil  One,  and 
therefore  doomed  to  perish  in  the  flames  of  Gehenna.  As 
they  rejected  the  Ten  Commandments  out  of  love  for  blood¬ 
shed,  lust,  and  robbery,  so,  according  to  the  Haggadists, 
they  will  be  unable  to  withstand  the  last  judgment  and  will 

1  B.  B.  15  b;  Seder  Olam  R.  XXI.  2  Mek.  Yithro  V ;  Ab.  Z.  2  b-3  a. 

3  Deut.  IV,  19;  XXIX,  25;  Jer.  X,  16;  B.  Sira  XVIII,  17;  comp. 
Bousset,  1.  c.,  350. 

4  Jubil.  XI,  3-5 ;  XIX,  20;  Enoch  XV ;  XIX ;  XCIX,  7 ;  see  Bousset,  1.  c., 
350-3SI- 


402 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


suffer  eternal  punishment.  Since  their  one  desire  was  to 
enjoy  the  life  of  this  world,  their  lot  in  the  future  will  be 
Gehenna;  while  the  gates  of  the  Garden  of  Eden  will  be 
open  for  Israel,  the  people  oppressed  and  sorely  tried,  yet 
ever  faithful  to  the  covenant  of  Abraham.1  Of  course,  this 
view  implied  both  comfort  and  vengeance,  but  we  must  not 
forget  that  the  harsh  statements  contained  in  the  Talmud 
owe  their  origin  to  bitter  distress  and  cannot  be  considered 
Jewish  doctrines,  as  unfriendly  critics  frequently  do.2 

7.  As  has  been  shown  above,  the  dominant  view  of  the 
Synagogue  is  that  eternal  salvation  belongs  to  the  righteous 
among  the  nations  as  well  as  those  of  Israel.  In  this  sense, 
Psalm  IX,  18,  is  understood  to  the  effect  that  “all  those 
heathens  who  have  forgotten  God  will  go  down  to  the  nether 
world.”  3  One  of  the  sages  expresses  a  still  broader  view : 
“When  judging  the  nations,  God  determines  their  standard 
by  their  best  representatives.” 4  Many  rabbis  held  the 
belief  that  circumcision  secured  for  the  Jew  a  place  in  “Abra¬ 
ham’s  bosom”  while  the  uncircumcised  are  consigned  to 
Gehenna,  thus  assigning  to  circumcision  a  corresponding  place 
to  that  of  baptism  in  the  Christian  Church.  This  belief 
seems  to  be  based  upon  a  passage  in  Ezekiel,  where  the 
prophet  speaks  of  the  arelim ,  or  “uncircumcised,”  as  dwell¬ 
ing  in  the  nether  world.5  But  a  number  of  passages  in  the 
Talmud,  especially  in  the  Tosefta,6  show  that  circumcision 
was  not  believed  to  have  the  power  to  save  a  sinner  from 

1  Yeb.  98  a,  ref.  to  Ezek.  XXIII,  20;  Ab.  Z.,  1.  c.  In  this  sense  we  must 
take  the  Talmudic  passage:  “Israel  are  really  men,  not  the  heathen,”  Yeb. 
61  a;  B.  M.  114  b;  B.  B.  16  b;  whereas  the  passage,  Lev.  XVIII,  5,  “which 
man  doth  to  live  thereby,”  is  declared  to  include  all  who  observe  the  laws  of 
humanity,  Sifra  eodem;  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  I,  1-2. 

2  Lazarus,  1.  c.,  49.  3  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2.  4  Yer.  R.  Sh.  I,  57  a. 

6  Ezek.  XXVIII,  10;  XXXI,  18;  XXXII,  19-32.  Possibly  the  prophet 
in  speaking  of  arelim  had  in  mind  the  Babylonian  Arallu,  “the  nether- world  ” ; 
see  Ex.  R.  XIX,  5 ;  Gen.  R.  XL;  VIII,  7;  Tanh.  Lek  Leka,  ed.  Buber,  27. 

6  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  4-5 ;  Rosh  ha  Shana,  17  a. 


ISRAEL  AND  THE  HEATHEN  NATIONS 


403 


Gehenna.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  the  great  teaching 
of  R.  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  in  opposing  his  disciple  Eliezer 
ben  Hyrcanus,  telling  that  the  sacrifices  which  atoned  for 
the  sins  of  Israel  are  paralleled  by  deeds  of  benevolence, 
which  can  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  heathen.1  Both  the 
Talmud  and  Philo  state  that  the  seventy  bullocks  which 
were  offered  up  during  the  seven  days  of  the  Feast  of  Taber¬ 
nacles  were  brought  by  Israel  as  sacrifices  for  the  seventy 
nations  of  the  world.2 

8.  Where  no  cause  existed  to  fear  the  influence  of  idolatry, 
friendly  relations  with  non- Jews  were  always  recommended 
and  cultivated.  A  non-Jew  who  devotes  his  life  to  the  study 
and  practice  of  the  law,  said  Rabbi  Meir,  is  equal  to  the  high 
priest;  for  Scripture  says:  “The  laws  which,  if  a  man  do, 
he  shall  live  by  them/’  implying  that  pure  humanity  is  the 
one  essential  required  by  God.3  Indeed,  Rabbi  Meir  enjoyed 
a  close  friendship  with  CEnomaos  of  Gadara,4  a  heathen  phil¬ 
osopher  spoken  of  admiringly  in  Talmudic  sources  and  placed 
on  a  par  with  Balaam  as  noble  representatives  of  heathendom. 
Obviously  this  good  opinion  was  held,  because  both  spoke 
favorably  of  Judaism,  whose  “synagogues  and  schoolhouses 
formed  the  strongest  bulwark  against  the  attacks  of  Jew- 
haters.”  Other  friendships  which  were  described  in  popular 
legends  and  held  up  as  examples  for  emulation  are  those  be¬ 
tween  Jehuda  ha  Nasi  and  the  Emperor  Antoninus  (Severus) 5 
and  that  of  Samuel  of  Babylonia  with  Ablat,  a  Persian  sage.6 

9.  The  Mosaic  and  Talmudic  law  prescribed  quite  different 
treatment  for  those  heathen  who  persisted  in  idolatrous 

iB.  B.  10  b;  A.  d.  R.  N.  IV. 

2  Suk.  55  b;  Pesik.  193  b;  Philo;  Vita  Mosis,  2  f;  De  Special;  1,3;  II, 
104,  227,  238. 

3  Sifra,  Ahare  Moth  13. 

4  Gen.  R.  L;  LXV,  16;  Ruth  R.  I,  8;  J.  E.,  art.  CEnomaos. 

6  J.  E.  art.  Antoninus  in  the  Talmud;  Kraus:  Antoninus. 

6  Ab.  Z.  30  a. 


404 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


practices  and  refused  to  observe  the  laws  of  humanity,  called 
the  seven  Noahitic  laws,  as  will  be  explained  more  fully 
in  the  next  chapter.  No  toleration  could  be  granted  them 
within  the  ancient  jurisdiction;  “Thou  shalt  show  them  no 
mercy”  was  the  phrase  of  the  law  for  the  seven  tribes  of 
Canaan,  and  this  was  applied  to  all  idolaters.1  Hence  Mai- 
monides  lays  down  the  rule  in  his  Code  that  “wherever  and 
whenever  the  Mosaic  law  is  in  force,  the  people  must  be 
compelled  to  abjure  heathenism  and  accept  the  seven  laws 
of  Noah  in  the  name  of  God,  or  else  they  are  doomed  to  die.”  2 
On  the  other  hand,  in  the  very  same  Code,  Maimonides 
writes  in  the  spirit  of  Rabbi  Meir :  “Not  only  the  Jewish 
tribe  is  sanctified  by  the  highest  degree  of  human  holiness, 
but  every  human  being,  without  difference  of  birth,  in  whom 
is  the  spirit  of  love  and  the  power  of  knowledge  to  devote 
his  life  exclusively  to  the  service  of  God  and  the  dissemination 
of  His  knowledge,  and  who,  walking  uprightly  before  Him, 
has  cast  off  the  yoke  of  the  many  earthly  desires  pursued 
by  the  rest  of  men.  God  is  his  portion  and  his  eternal  in¬ 
heritance,  and  God  will  provide  for  his  needs,  as  He  did  for 
the  priest  and  the  Levite  of  yore.”  3 

io.  To  be  sure,  a  statement  of  this  nature  presents  a  differ¬ 
ent  judgment  of  heathenism  from  that  of  the  ancient  national 
law.  But  the  historical  and  comparative  study  of  religions 
has  caused  us  to  entertain  altogether  different  views  of  the 
various  heathen  religions,  both  those  representing  primitive 
stages  of  childlike  imagination  and  superstition,  and  those 
more  developed  faiths  which  inculcate  genuine  ideals  of  a 
more  or  less  lofty  character.  Certainly  the  laws  of  Deuter¬ 
onomy,  written  when  the  nation  had  dwindled  down  to  the 
little  kingdom  of  Judaea,  and  those  further  expounded  in  the 
Mishnah  enjoining  the  most  rigorous  intolerance  toward 

1  Deut.  VII,  3 ;  Sanh.  57  a-59  b.  2  H.  Melakim  VIII,  9-10. 

3  H.  Shemitta  we  Yobel  XIII,  13. 


ISRAEL  AND  THE  HEATHEN  NATIONS 


405 


every  vestige  of  paganism,  had  only  a  theoretical  value  for 
the  powerless  Jewish  nation ;  while  both  the  Church  and 
the  rulers  of  Islam  were  largely  guided  by  them  in  practical 
measures.  The  higher  view  of  Judaism  was  expressed  by 
the  last  of  the  prophets:  “‘For  from  the  rising  of  the  sun 
even  unto  the  going  down  of  the  same  My  name  is  great 
among  the  nations ;  and  in  every  place  offerings  are  pre¬ 
sented  unto  My  name,  even  pure  oblations,  for  My  name  is 
great  among  the  nations,’  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  1  The 
fact  is  that  heathenism  seeks  the  God  whom  Israel  by  its 
revelation  has  found.  In  this  spirit  both  Philo  and  Josephus 
took  the  Scriptural  passage,  “Thou  shalt  not  curse  God,” 
taking  the  Hebrew  Elohim  in  the  plural  sense,  “the  gods”; 
thus  they  said  a  Jew  must  not  offend  the  religious  sense  of 
the  heathen  by  scorn  or  ridicule,  however  careful  he  must 
be  to  avoid  the  imitation  of  their  practices  and  superstitions.2 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Code  of  Law  aimed  to  separate 
Israel  and  the  nations  in  order  to  avoid  the  crude  worship 
of  idols,  animals  and  stars  practiced  by  the  heathen  of 
antiquity.  It  was  not  framed  for  masters  like  Socrates, 
Buddha,  and  Confucius,  with  their  lofty  moral  views  and 
their  claims  upon  humanity.  The  God  who  revealed  himself 
to  Abraham,  Job,  Enoch,  and  Balaam,  as  well  as  to  Moses  and 
Isaiah,  spoke  to  them  also,  and  the  wise  ones  of  Israel  have 
ever  hearkened  to  their  inspiring  lessons.  Their  words  are 
echoed  in  Jewish  literature  together  with  Solomon’s  words 
of  wisdom.  Plato,  Plotinus,  and  Aristotle  received  the  most 
friendly  hospitality  from  the  rabbinic  philosophers  and  mystic 
writers  of  Jewry,  and  so  Buddhist  sayings  and  views  pene¬ 
trated  into  Jewish  ethics  and  popular  teachings.  Both  the 

1  Mai.  I,  11. 

2  Ex.  XXII,  26;  Philo  II,  166;  Josephus:  Ant.,  IV,  8,  10;  Con.  Apio.,  II, 
34;  comp.  Kohler:  “The  Halakic  Portions  in  Josephus’  Antiquities,”  in 
H.  U.  C.  Monthly  III,  117. 


406 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Jew  and  his  literature  are  cosmopolitan,  and  Judaism  never 
withholds  its  appreciation  of  the  merits  of  the  heathen  world.1 

n.  We  must  especially  emphasize  one  claim  of  the  Jewish 
people  above  other  nations  which  the  rabbis  call  zekuth  aboth, 
“the  merit  of  the  fathers,”  and  which  we  may  term  “heredi¬ 
tary  virtue.”  The  election  of  Israel,  in  spite  of  its  own 
lack  of  merit,  is  declared  in  Deuteronomy  and  elsewhere 
to  be  due  to  the  merit  of  the  fathers,  with  whom  God  con¬ 
cluded  His  covenant  in  love.2  The  promise  is  often  repeated 
that  God  will  ever  remember  His  covenant  with  the  fathers 
and  not  let  the  people  perish,  even  though  their  sins  were 
great;  therefore  the  rabbis  assumed  that  the  patriarchs  had 
accumulated  a  store  of  merit  by  their  virtues  which  would 
redound  before  God  to  the  benefit  of  their  descendants,  sup¬ 
plementing  their  own  weaknesses.3  This  merit  or  righteous¬ 
ness  of  the  fathers  formed  a  prominent  part  of  the  hope  and 
prayer,  nay,  of  the  whole  theological  system  of  the  Jewish 
people.  They  regarded  the  patriarchs  and  all  the  great 
leaders  of  the  past  as  patterns  of  loyalty  and  love  for  God, 
so  that,  according  to  the  Midrash,  Israel  might  say  in  the 
words  of  the  Shulamite:  “Black  am  I”  considering  my  own 
merit,  “but  comely”  when  considering  the  merit  of  the 
fathers.4  Whether  this  store  of  merit  would  ever  be  ex¬ 
hausted  is  a  matter  of  controversy  among  the  rabbis.  Some 
referred  to  God’s  own  words  that  He  will  ever  remember 
His  covenant  with  the  fathers;  others  pointed  to  the  verse 
in  Deutero-Isaiah :  “For  the  mountains  may  depart,  and 
the  hills  be  removed ;  but  My  kindness  shall  not  depart  from 

1  See  Meg.  16  a;  J.  E.,  art.  Aristotle;  Neumark,  1.  c.,  Index:  Aristoteles, 
Plato,  Plotin;  comp.  Bahya:  Hoboth  ha  Lebaboth,  and  other  medieval  phil¬ 
osophic  works. 

2  Deut.  IV,  37. 

3  Ex.  XXXIII,  12 ;  Lev.  XXVI,  42 ;  Ex.  R.  XLIV,  7-8 ;  Lev.  R.  XXXVI, 

2-5. 

4  Cant.  R.  I,  5. 


ISRAEL  AND  THE  HEATHEN  NATIONS 


407 


thee,  neither  shall  My  covenant  of  peace  be  removed,”  which 
they  interpreted  symbolically  to  mean :  when  the  merit  of 
the  patriarchs  and  matriarchs  of  Israel  is  exhausted,  God’s 
mercy  and  compassion  for  Israel  will  be  there  never  to  de¬ 
part.1  Translated  into  our  own  mode  of  thinking,  this  merit 
of  the  fathers  claimed  for  Israel  signifies  the  unique  treasure 
of  a  spiritual  inheritance  which  belongs  to  the  Jew.  This  in¬ 
heritance  of  thousands  of  years  provides  such  rare  examples 
and  such  high  inspiration  that  it  incites  to  the  highest  virtue, 
the  firmest  loyalty,  and  the  greatest  love  for  truth  and  justice. 
Judaism,  knowing  no  such  thing  as  original  sin,  points 
with  pride  instead  to  hereditary  virtue,  deriving  an  inex¬ 
haustible  source  of  blessing  from  its  historical  continuity  of 
four  thousand  years. 

1  Isa.  LIV,  10;  Shab.  55  a;  comp.  S.  Hirsch :  “The  Doctrine  of  Original 
Virtue  ”  in  Jew.  Lit.  Annual,  1905;  Schechter,  1.  c.,  170  f. 


CHAPTER  LVI 


The  Stranger  and  the  Proselyte 

1.  Among  all  the  laws  of  the  Mosaic  Code,  that  which  has 
no  parallel  in  any  other  ancient  code  is  the  one  enjoining 
justice,  kindness  and  love  toward  the  stranger.  The  Book  of 
the  Covenant  teaches  :  “  And  a  stranger  shalt  thou  not  wrong, 
neither  shalt  thou  oppress  him ;  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,”1  and  “A  stranger  shalt  thou  not  oppress; 
for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,  seeing  ye  were  strangers 
in  the  land  of  Egypt.”  The  Deuteronomic  writer  lays  special 
stress  on  the  fact  that  Israel’s  God,  “who  regardeth  not  persons 
nor  taketh  bribes,  doth  execute  justice  for  the  fatherless  and 
the  widow,  and  loveth  the  stranger,  in  giving  him  food  and 
raiment.”  He  then  concludes:  “Love  ye  therefore  the 
stranger ;  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt.”  2  The 
Priestly  Code  goes  still  further,  granting  the  stranger  the  same 
legal  protection  as  the  native.3 

2.  We  would,  however,  misunderstand  the  spirit  of  all 
antiquity,  including  ancient  Israel,  if  we  consider  this  as  an 
expression  of  universal  love  for  mankind  and  the  recognition 
of  every  human  being  as  fellow-man  and  brother.  Throughout 
antiquity  and  during  the  semi-civilized  Middle  Ages,  a  stranger 
was  an  enemy  unless  he  became  a  guest.  If  he  sought  protec¬ 
tion  at  the  family  hearth  or  (in  the  Orient)  under  the  tent  of 
a  Sheik,  he  thereby  entered  into  a  tutelary  relation  with  both 
the  clan  or  tribe  and  its  deity.  After  entering  into  such  a 

1  Ex.  XXII,  20 ;  XXIII,  g.  2  Deut.  X,  18-19.  3  Lev.  XIV,  22. 

408 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


409 


relation,  temporary  or  permanent,  he  became,  in  the  term 
which  the  Mosaic  law  uses  in  common  with  the  general  Semitic 
custom,  a  Ger  or  To'shab ,  “sojourner”  or  “settler,”  entitled 
to  full  protection.1  This  relation  of  dependency  on  the  com¬ 
munity  is  occasionally  expressed  by  the  term:  “thy  stranger 
that  is  within  thy  gates.”  2  Such  protection  implied,  in  turn, 
that  the  Ger  or  protege  owed  an  obligation  to  the  tribe  or  com¬ 
munity  which  shielded  him.  He  stood  under  the  protection 
of  the  tribal  god,  frequently  assumed  his  name,  and  thus 
dared  not  violate  the  law  of  the  land  or  of  its  deity,  lest  he  for¬ 
feit  his  claim  to  protection. 

3.  In  accordance  with  this,  the  oft-repeated  Mosaic  com¬ 
mand  for  benevolence  toward  the  stranger,  which  placed  him 
on  the  same  footing  with  the  needy  and  helpless,  imposed 
certain  religious  obligations  upon  him.  He  was  enjoined,  like 
the  Israelite,  not  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  by  labor, 
nor  to  provoke  God’s  anger  by  idolatrous  practices,  and,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Priestly  Code,  to  avoid  the  eating  of  blood  and 
the  contracting  of  incestuous  marriages  as  well  as  the  trans¬ 
gression  of  the  laws  for  Passover  and  the  Day  of  Atonement. 
Naturally,  in  criminal  cases  such  as  blasphemy  he  was  subject 
to  the  death-penalty  just  like  the  native.3  Still,  the  Ger  was 
not  admitted  as  a  citizen,  and  in  the  Mosaic  system  of  law  he 
was  always  a  tolerated  or  protected  alien,  unless  he  under- 

1  Gen.  XXIII,  4;  Lev.  XX,  35.  On  the  term  Ger  see  W.  R.  Smith:  The 
Religion  of  the  Semites,  75  ff. ;  Bertholet :  Die  Stellung  d.  Israeliten  und  Jnden 
zu  den  Fremden,  28,  178;  Schuerer,  1.  c.,  Ill,  150-188;  Encyc.  Biblica,  art. 
Stranger  and  Sojourner;  Cheyne,  Bampton  Lectures ,  1889,  p.  429.  Commerce 
between  the  Phoenicians  and  Greeks  was  protected  by  the  Greek  god  of  the 
stranger  (Zeus  Xenios) ;  see  Ihering :  D.  Gastfreundschaft  im  Alterthum , 
Deutsche  Rundschau,  1887,  showing  how  the  Phoenicians  developed  the  Ger 
idea  in  the  direction  of  international  commerce,  just  as  the  Jews  developed 
it  toward  international  religion;  M.  J.  Kohler:  “Right  of  Asylum ”  in  Am. 
Law  Review,  LI,  p.  381. 

2  Ex.  XX,  10. 

3  Lev.  XVI,  29;  XVII,  8-15;  XVIII,  26;  XXIV,  16-29. 


4io 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


went  the  rite  of  circumcision  and  thus  joined  the  Israelitish 
community.1 

4.  With  the  transformation  of  the  Israelitish  State  into 
the  Jewish  community — in  other  words,  with  the  change  of  the 
people  from  a  political  to  a  religious  status, — this  relation  to  the 
non-Jew  underwent  a  decided  change.  As  the  contrast  to  the 
heathen  became  more  marked,  the  Ger  assumed  a  new  position. 
As  he  pledged  himself  to  abandon  all  vestiges  of  idolatry  and 
to  conform  to  certain  principles  of  the  Jewish  law,  he  entered 
into  closer  relations  with  the  people.  Accordingly,  he  adopted 
certain  parts  of  the  Mosaic  code  or  the  entire  law,  and  thus 
became  either  a  partial  or  a  complete  member  of  the  religious 
community  of  Israel.  In  either  case  he  was  regarded  as  a  fol¬ 
lower  of  the  God  of  the  Covenant.  In  spite  of  the  exclusive 
spirit  which  was  dominant  in  the  period  following  Ezra,  two 
forces  favored  the  extending  of  the  boundaries  of  Judaism 
beyond  the  confines  of  the  nation.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
Babylonian  Exile  had  visualized  and  partially  realized  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah:  “Unto  Thee  shall  the  nations  come 
from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  shall  say  :  ‘  Our  fathers  have  in¬ 
herited  naught  but  lies,  vanity  and  things  wherein  there  is  no 
profit.’”2  For  example,  Zechariah  announced  a  time  when 
“many  peoples  and  mighty  nations  shall  come  to  seek  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  in  Jerusalem  and  to  entreat  the  favor  of  the 
Lord,”  and  “Ten  men  shall  take  hold,  out  of  all  the  lan¬ 
guages  of  nations,  shall  even  take  hold  of  the  skirt  of  him  that 
is  a  Jew,  saying,  ‘We  will  go  with  you,  for  we  have  heard  that 
God  is  with  you.’  ”  3  Another  prophet  said  at  the  time  of  the 
overthrow  of  Babylon :  “For  the  Lord  will  have  compassion 
on  Jacob,  and  will  yet  choose  Israel,  and  set  them  in  their  own 

1  Ex.  XII,  48;  see  Yeb.  46  a-47  b;  Mas.  Gerim  I— III.  The  opinion  of 
Bertholet  and  Schuerer  concerning  the  semi-proselyte  or  Ger  Toshab  is  con¬ 
tradicted  by  both  the  Book  of  Jubilees  and  the  Talmudic  sources,  as  will  be 
shown  below. 

2  Jer.  XVI,  19. 


3  Zech.  VIII,  21-23. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


411 

land,  and  the  stranger  (Ger,  or  proselyte)  shall  join  himself 
with  them,  and  they  shall  cleave  to  the  house  of  Jacob.”  1 
The  Psalmists  especially  refer  to  the  heathen  who  shall  join 
Israel,2  so  that  Ger  now  becomes  the  regular  term  for  prose¬ 
lyte.3 

In  addition  to  this  inward  religious  desire  we  must  consider 
the  social  and  political  impulse.  The  handful  of  Judaeans  who 
had  returned  from  Babylonia  were  so  surrounded  by  heathen 
tribes  that,  while  the  Samaritans  had  attracted  the  less  desir¬ 
able  groups,  they  were  glad  to  welcome  the  influx  of  such  as 
promised  to  become  true  worshipers  of  God.  The  chief  prob¬ 
lem  was  how  to  provide  a  legal  form  for  these  to  “come  over,” 
proselyte  being  the  Greek  term  for  “him  who  comes  over.” 
By  such  a  form  they  could  enter  the  community  while  accepting 
certain  religious  obligations.  In  fact,  such  obligations  had 
been  stated  before  in  the  Priestly  Code,  which  admitted  into 
the  political  community  as  “sojourners”  or  “indwellers” 
those  who  pledged  themselves  to  abstain  from  idolatry,  blas¬ 
phemy,  incest,  the  eating  of  blood  or  of  flesh  from  living  ani¬ 
mals,  and  from  all  violence  against  human  life  and  property. 
They  were  debarred  only  from  marriage  into  the  religious 
community,  “the  congregation  of  the  Lord.”  Henceforth 
Ger  and  Ger  Toshab  became  juridical  terms,  the  social  and  legal 
designation  of  those  proselytes  who  had  abjured  heathenism 
and  joined  the  monotheistic  ranks  of  Judaism  as  “worshipers 
of  God.” 

5.  Thus  the  first  great  step  in  the  progress  of  Judaism  from 
a  national  system  of  law  to  a  universal  religion  was  made  in 
Judaea.  The  next  step  was  to  recognize  the  idea  of  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  God  to  the  “god-fearing  men”  of  the  primeval  ages,  as 
described  in  the  Mosaic  books,  and  thus  to  open  the  gates  of 

1  Isa.  XIV,  I. 

2  Ps.  XXII,  30 ;  LX VII,  3  ;  LXVIII,  30  f. ;  LXXXVII,  4  f. 

3 II.  Chron.  II,  16;  XXX,  25. 


412 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  national  religion  for  heathen  who  had  become  “God¬ 
fearing  men  ”  or  “  worshipers  of  the  Lord.”  Thus  the  Psalms, 
after  enumerating  the  customary  two  or  three  classes,  “the 
house  of  Israel,”  “of  Aaron,”  and  “of  Levi,”  often  add  the 
“God-fearing”  proselyte.1  The  Synagogue  was  especially 
attractive  to  the  heathen  who  sought  religious  truth  because 
of  its  elevating  devotion  and  its  public  instruction  in  the  Scrip¬ 
ture,  translated  into  Greek,  the  language  of  the  cultured  world. 
This  sponsored  a  new  system  for  propagating  the  Jewish  faith. 
The  so-called  Propaganda  literature  of  Alexandria  laid  its  chief 
stress  upon  the  ethical  laws  of  Judaism,  not  seeking  to  submit 
the  non- Jew  to  the  observance  of  the  entire  Mosaic  law  or  to 
subject  him  to  the  rite  of  circumcision.  The  Jewish  merchants, 
coming  into  contact  with  non- Jews  in  their  travels  on  land  and 
sea,  endeavored  especially  to  present  their  religious  tenets  in 
terms  of  a  broad,  universal  religion.  As  a  universal  faith  forms 
the  background  of  the  entire  Wisdom  literature,  particularly 
the  book  of  Job,  a  simple  monotheism  could  be  founded  upon 
a  divine  revelation  to  mankind  in  general,  corresponding  to 
the  one  to  Noah  and  his  sons  after  the  flood.  The  laws  con¬ 
nected  with  this  covenant,  called  the  Noahitic  laws,  were 
general  humanitarian  precepts.  We  find  these  enumerated  in 
the  Talmud  as  six,  seven,  and  occasionally  ten.  Sometimes 
we  read  of  thirty  such  laws  to  be  accepted  by  the  heathen, 
probably  founded  upon  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus, 
at  one  time  central  in  Jewish  ethics.2  At  any  rate,  the 

1  Ps.  CXV,  II ;  CXVIII,  4;  CXXXV,  20;  comp.  LXVII,  8;  CII,  16; 
Job  I,i;  TobitLXIV,  6;  Sibyll.  Ill,  572,  756 ;  Acts  X,  2;  XXI,  13;  V,  26  f. ; 
XVI,  44;  XVII,  4;  XVIII,  7;  Midi.  Teh.  Ps.  XXII,  29;  Lev.  Ill,  2;  Mek. 
to  Ex.  XXII,  20;  see  Bernays :  Ges.  Abh.,  II,  74. 

2  Tos.  Ab.  Z.  IX,  4;  Sanh.  56  b— 57 ;  Gen.  R.  XXXIV,  7;  Jubil.  VII,  20  f. ; 
Sibyll.  Ill,  38,  762.  For  the  thirty  commandments,  see  Yer.  Ab.  Z.  II,  40  c; 
Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  II,  5;  Gen.  R.  XCVIII,  9;  J.  Q.  R.,  1894,  p.  259.  Comp, 
also  Pseudo-Phocylides  in  Bernays’  Ges.  Abh.,  I,  291  ff. ;  Seeberg:  D.  beiden 
Wege  u.  d.  A  posteldecret,  p.  25  ;  Klein :  Der  aeltcste  christl.  Katechismus  ;  J.  E.,  art. 
Commandments. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


413 


observance  of  the  so-called  Noahitic  laws  was  demanded  of 
all  worshipers  of  the  one  God  of  Israel. 

Strange  to  say,  however,  this  extensive  propaganda  of  the 
Alexandrian  Jews  during  the  two  or  three  pre-Christian 
centuries  left  few  traces  in  the  history  and  literature  of 
Palestinian  Judaism.  Two  reasons  seem  at  hand ;  the 
growth  of  the  Paulinian  Church,  which  absorbed  the  mission¬ 
ary  activity  of  the  Synagogue,  and  the  effort  of  Talmudic 
Judaism  to  obliterate  the  old  missionary  tradition.  To  judge 
from  occasional  references  in  Josephus  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  as  well  as  many  inscriptions  all  over  the  lands  of  the 
Mediterranean,1  the  number  of  heathen  converts  to  the 
Synagogue  was  very  large  and  caused  attacks  on  Judaism  in 
both  Rome  and  Alexandria.  Josephus  tells  us  that  Jews  and 
proselytes  in  all  lands  sent  sacrificial  gifts  to  Jerusalem  in  such 
abundance  as  to  excite  the  avarice  of  the  Romans.2  The 
Midrash  preserves  a  highly  interesting  passage  which  casts 
light  on  the  earlier  significance  of  the  winning  of  heathen  con¬ 
verts,  reading  as  follows  :  “  When  it  is  said  in  Zephaniah  II,  5  : 
‘Woe  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  sea-coast,  the  nation  of  Kereth- 
ites  ’ ;  this  means  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  various  pagan 
lands  would  be  doomed  to  undergo  Kareth ,  ‘perdition/  save 
for  the  one  God-fearing  proselyte,  who  is  won  over  to  Juda¬ 
ism  each  year  and  set  up  to  save  the  heathen  world.”  3  In 
other  words,  the  merit  of  the  one  proselyte  whose  conversion 
awakens  the  hope  for  the  winning  of  the  entire  heathen  world 
to  pure  monotheism,  is  an  atoning  power  for  all.  Such  was 
the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees,  whom  the  gospel  of  Matthew 
brands  as  hypocrites  because  of  their  zeal  in  making 
proselytes. 

1  See  Schuerer,  1.  c.,  165,  175;  Harnack,  D.  Mission  u.  Ausbreitung  d. 
Christentums,  chapter  I. 

2  Ant.  XVI,  7. 

3  Gen.  R.  XXVIII,  5;  Cant.  R.  I,  4;  see  Matt.  XXIII,  15;  Jellinek,  B.  H. 
VI,  Introd.,  p.  XL VI. 


414 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


6.  This  kind  of  proselytism  was  encouraged  only  by  Alex¬ 
andrian  or  Hellenistic  Judaism.  In  Palestine,  however,  the 
social  system  of  the  nation  was  quite  unfavorable  to  the  sim¬ 
ple  “  God-worshiper,”  who  remained  merely  a  tolerated  alien, 
even  though  protected,  and  never  really  entered  the  national 
body.  Legally  he  was  termed  Ger  Toshab,  “settler,”  which 
meant  semi-proselyte.  The  type  of  this  class  was  Naaman, 
the  Syrian  general  who  was  instructed  by  Elijah  to  bathe  in 
the  Jordan  to  cure  his  leprosy,  and  then  became  a  worshiper 
of  the  God  of  Israel.1  Similarly,  whatever  the  real  origin  of 
the  proselyte’s  bath  may  have  been,  a  baptismal  bath  was 
prescribed  for  the  proselyte  to  wash  off  the  stain  of  idolatry.2 
He  was  regarded  as  one  who  had  “fled  from  his  former  master” 
(in  heaven)  to  find  refuge  with  the  only  God ; 3  therefore  he 
was  legally  entitled  to  shelter,  support,  and  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  from  the  authorities.4  Certain  places  were  assigned  where 
he  was  to  receive  protection  and  provision  for  his  needs,  but 
he  was  not  allowed  to  settle  in  Jerusalem,  where  only  full 
proselytes  were  received  as  citizens.5  According  to  Philo, 
special  hospices  were  fitted  out  for  the  reception  of  semi¬ 
proselytes.6 

7.  In  order  to  enjoy  full  citizenship  and  equal  rights,  the 
proselyte  had  to  undergo  both  the  baptismal  bath  and  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  thus  accepting  all  the  laws  of  the  Mosaic 
Code  equally  with  the  Israelite  born.  Beside  this,  he  had  to 
bring  a  special  proselyte’s  sacrifice  as  a  testimony  to  his  belief 
in  the  God  of  Israel.  In  distinction  from  the  Ger  Toshab ,  or 
semi-proselyte,  he  was  then  called  Ger  ha  Zedek  or  Ger  Zedek. 
This  name,  usually  translated  as  “proselyte  of  righteousness,” 

1 II  Kings  C,  1-1 5 ;  see  LXX  to  verse  14 ;  Sanh.  96  b. 

2  See  Sota,  12  b;  Sibyll.  IV,  164;  comp.  Gen.  R.  II,  5;  J.  E.,  art.  Baptism 
and  Birth,  New;  Enc.  Religion  and  Ethics,  art.  Baptism,  Jewish. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Asenath,  and  the  passages  quoted  there. 

4  Sifre  and  Targum  to  Deut.  XXIII,  16-19. 

B  Tos.  Negaim  VI,  2 ;  Mas.  Gerim  III.  6  Philo,  De  Monarchia,  I,  7. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


415 


obviously  possesses  a  deeper  historical  meaning.  The  Psalmist 
voices  a  pure  ethical  monotheism  in  his  query  :  “  0  Lord,  who 
shall  be  a  guest  (Ger,  sojourner)  in  thy  tent?”  which  he  an¬ 
swers  :  “He  that  walketh  uprightly  and  worketh  righteousness 
and  speaketh  truth  in  his  heart.”  1  But  the  legal  view  of  the 
priestly  authorities  was  that  only  the  man  who  offers  a  “sacri¬ 
fice  of  righteousness”  and  pledges  himself  to  observe  all  the 
laws  binding  upon  Israel  might  become  a  “guest”  in  the 
Temple  on  Zion,  an  adopted  citizen  of  Jerusalem,  the  “city  of 
righteousness.”  2  In  illustration  of  this  view  a  striking  inter¬ 
pretation  to  a  Deuteronomic  verse  is  preserved  :  “They  shall 
call  people  unto  the  mountain,  there  shall  they  offer  sacrifices 
of  righteousness :  that  is,  the  heathen  nations  with  their 
kings  who  come  to  Jerusalem  for  commerce  with  the  Jewish 
people  shall  be  so  fascinated  by  its  pure  monotheistic  worship 
and  its  simple  diet,  that  they  will  espouse  the  Jewish  faith  and 
bring  sacrifices  to  the  God  of  Israel  as  proselytes.” 3 

The  prominence  of  the  full  proselyte  in  the  early  Synagogue 
appears  in  the  ancient  benediction  for  the  righteous  leaders  and 
Hasidim,  the  Soferim  and  Synedrion,  the  ruling  authorities  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  where  special  mention  is  made  of  “the  Prose¬ 
lytes  of  (the)  Righteousness.”  4  These  full  proselytes  pushed 
aside  the  half-proselytes,  so  that,  while  both  are  mentioned  in 
the  earlier  classification,  only  the  latter  are  considered  by  the 
later  Haggadah.5  With  the  dissolution  of  the  Jewish  State  no 
juridical  basis  remained  for  the  Ger  Toshab,  the  “protected 

1  Ps.  XV,  1-2 ;  see  Cheyne’s  Commentary. 

2  The  article  ha  Zedek  seems  to  point  to  Jerusalem,  called  “the  city”  or 
“dwelling  place  of  righteousness”  (Zedek).  See  Isa.  I,  21;  Jer.  XXXI,  23; 
L,  7.  Comp.  “Gates  of  righteousness”  (Zedek)  for  the  Temple  gates,  in  Ps. 
CXVIII,  19,  and  the  ancient  legendary  hero  of  Jerusalem,  Malki-Zedek,  Gen. 
XIV,  18;  Josephus,  J.  W.  VI,  10;  Epis.  Heb.  VII,  10;  and  Adoni  Zedek, 
first  king  of  Jerusalem,  Josh.  X,  3. 

3  Sifre  and  Targum  to  Deut.  XXXIII,  19.  4  Singer’s  Prayerh.,  p.  48. 

6  See  Mek.  Mishpatim  XVIII ;  comp.  A.  d.  R.  N.  XXXVI  ref.  to  Isa. 

XLIV,  5. 


4i  6 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


stranger.”  R.  Simeon  ben  Eleazar  expressed  this  in  the  state¬ 
ment:  “With  the  cessation  of  the  Jubilee  year  there  was  no 
longer  any  place  for  the  Ger  Toshab  in  Judaea.”  1  We  read  in 
Josephus  that  no  proselytes  were  accepted  in  his  time  unless 
they  submitted  to  the  Abrahamitic  rite  and  became  full  prose¬ 
lytes.2 

However,  as  Josephus  tells  us,  a  strong  desire  to  espouse 
the  Jewish  faith  existed  among  the  pagan  women  of  neighbor¬ 
ing  countries,  especially  of  Syria.3  The  same  situation  existed 
in  Rome  according  to  the  rabbinical  sources,  Josephus,  Roman 
writers,  and  many  tomb  inscriptions.4  Conspicuous  among 
these  proselytes  was  Queen  Helen  of  Adiabene,  who  won  lasting 
fame  by  her  generous  gifts  to  the  Jewish  people  in  time  of 
famine  and  to  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem ;  her  son  Menobaz,  at 
the  advice  of  a  Jewish  teacher,  underwent  the  rite  of  circum¬ 
cision  in  order  to  rise  from  a  mere  God-worshiper  to  a  full 
proselyte.5  The  Midrash  6  enumerates  nine  heathen  women 
of  the  Bible  who  became  God-worshipers  :  Hagar ;  Asenath, 
the  wife  of  Joseph,  whose  conversion  is  described  in  a  little 
known  but  very  instructive  Apocryphal  book  by  that  name ;  7 
Zipporah,  the  wife  of  Moses ;  Shifra  and  Puah,  the  Egyptian 
midwives ; 8  Pharaoh’s  daughter,  the  foster-mother  of  Moses, 
whom  the  rabbis  identified  with  Bithia  (Bath  Yah,  “Daughter 
of  the  Lord”) ; 9  Rahab,  whom  the  Midrash  represents  as  the 

1  Arak.  29  a.  2  Vita  25.  3  J.  W.  II,  20,  2. 

4  Josephus  :  Ant.  XIII,  9,  1 ;  11,  3 ;  XVIII,  3,  5 ;  XX,  8,  11 ;  Mek.  Bo  XV  : 

Beluria  (Fulvia  or  Valeria) ;  Schuerer,  III,  176 ;  Gemeindeverf.  v.  Juden  in  Rome; 

Graetz :  D.  juedisch.  Proselyten  im  Roemerreich;  Radin  :  Jews  among  Greeks  and 

Romans,  p.  389.  See  also  Crooks:  The  Jewish  Race  in  Ancient  and  Roman 
History. 

6  Josephus:  Ant.  XX,  2-4;  Yoma  III,  10;  Yoma  37  a.;  Suk.  2  b; 
B.  B.  11  a;  Gen.  R.  XLVI,  8. 

6  Midrash  Tadshe  in  Jellinek :  B.  H.  Ill,  111;  Epstein:  Jued.  Alter- 
thumskunde,  XLIII. 

7  See  J.  E.,  art.  Asenath. 

9 1  Chron.  IV,  18 ;  Meg.  13  a. 


8  Comp.  Sifre  Num.  178. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


417 


wife  of  Joshua  and  ancestress  of  many  prophets ; 1  Ruth  and 
Jael.  Philo  adds  Tamar,  the  daughter-in-law  of  Judah,  as  a 
type  of  a  proselyte.2 

8.  Beside  the  term  Ger,  with  its  derivatives,  which  gave 
legal  standing  to  the  proselyte,  the  religious  genius  of  Judaism 
found  another  term  which  illustrated  far  better  the  idea  of 
conversion  to  Judaism.  The  words  of  Boaz  to  Ruth:  “Be 
thy  reward  complete  from  the  Lord  thy  God  of  Israel,  under 
whose  wings  thou  art  come  to  take  refuge,”  3  were  applied  by 
the  Pharisean  leaders  to  all  who  joined  the  faith  as  Ruth  did. 
So  it  became  a  technical  term  for  converts  to  Judaism,  “to 
come,  or  be  brought,  under  the  wings  of  the  divine  majesty” 
(Shekinah).4  Philo  frequently  expresses  the  idea  that  the 
proselyte  who  renounces  heathenism  and  places  himself  under 
the  protection  of  Israel’s  God,  stands  in  filial  relation  to  Him 
exactly  like  the  born  Israelite.5  Therefore  Hillel  devoted  his 
life  to  missionary  activity,  endeavoring  “to  bring  the  soul  of 
many  a  heathen  under  the  wings  of  the  Shekinah.”  But  in 
this  he  was  merely  following  the  rabbinic  ideal  of  Abraham,6 
and  of  Jethro,  of  whom  the  Midrash  says  :  “After  having  been 
won  to  the  monotheistic  faith  by  Moses,  he  returned  to  his 
land  to  bring  his  countrymen,  the  Kenites,  under  the  wings 
of  the  Shekinah.”  7  The  proselyte’s  bath  in  living  water  was 
to  constitute  a  rebirth  of  the  former  heathen,  poetically  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  Halakic  rule:  “A  convert  is  like  a  newborn 
creature.”  8  The  Paulinian  idea  that  baptism  creates  a  new 
Adam  in  place  of  the  old  is  but  an  adaptation  of  the  Pharisaic 
view.  Some  ancient  teachers  therefore  declared  the  prose¬ 
lyte’s  bath  more  important  than  circumcision,  since  it  forms 

1  Meg.  15  b.  2  Philo:  De  Nobilitate,  6;  II,  443. 

3  Ruth  II,  12. 

4  Ab.  d.  R.  N.,  ed.  Schechter,  53  f.;  Shab.  31a;  Lev.  R.  II,  8. 

5  See  Bertholet,  1.  c.,  285-287. 

6  Ab.  d.  R.  N.,  1.  c.  7  Mek.  to  Ex.  XVIII,  27. 

8  Gen.  R.  XXXIX,  14;  Yeb.  22  a;  comp.  Pes.  VIII,  8. 


2E 


418 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  sole  initiatory  rite  for  female  proselytes,  as  it  was  with  the 
wives  of  the  patriarchs.1 

9.  The  school  of  Hillel  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  Hellen¬ 
istic  Judaism  in  accentuating  the  ethical  element  in  the  law  ;2 
so  naturally  it  encouraged  proselytism  as  well.  The  Midrash 
preserves  the  following  Mishnah,  handed  down  by  Simeon  ben 
Gamaliel,  but  not  contained  in  our  Mishnaic  Code  :  “If  a  Ger 
desires  to  espouse  the  Jewish  faith,  we  extend  to  him  the  hand 
of  welcome  in  order  to  bring  him  under  the  wings  of  the 
Shekinah.”  3  Both  the  Midrash  and  the  early  Church  litera¬ 
ture  reveal  traces  of  a  Jewish  treatise  on  proselytes,  containing 
rules  for  admission  into  the  two  grades,  which  was  written  in 
the  spirit  of  the  Hellenistic  propaganda,  but  was  afterward  re¬ 
written  and  adopted  by  the  Christian  Church.  The  school 
of  Shammai  in  its  rigorous  legalism  opposed  proselytism  in 
general,  and  its  chief  representative,  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos, 
distrusted  proselytes  altogether.4  On  the  other  hand,  the 
followers  of  Hillel  were  decidedly  in  favor  of  converting  the 
heathen  and  were  probably  responsible  for  many  Haggadic 
passages  extolling  the  proselytes.  Thus  the  verse  of  Deutero- 
Isaiah :  “One  shall  say,  ‘  I  am  the  Lord’s,’  and  another  shall 
call  himself  by  the  name  of  Jacob;  and  another  shall  sub¬ 
scribe  with  his  hand  unto  the  Lord,  and  surname  himself  by 
the  name  of  Israel  ”  is  peculiarly  applied  in  the  Midrash.  The 
first  half,  we  are  told,  denotes  two  classes  of  Israelites,  those 
who  are  without  blemish,  and  those  who  have  sinned  and  re¬ 
pented  ;  the  second  half  includes  the  two  classes  of  proselytes, 
those  who  have  become  full  Jews  (Gere  ha  Zedek)  and  those  who 
are  merely  worshippers  of  God  (Yir’e  Shamayim) .  A  later 
Haggadic  version  characteristically  omits  the  last,  recogniz¬ 
ing  only  the  full  converts  (Gere  Emeth)  as  proselytes.5  The 

1  Yeb.  46  a;  comp.  Josephus :  Ant.  XX,  2-4.  2  Shab.  31a. 

3  Lev.  R.  II,  8.  4  Gen.  R.  LXX,  5 ;  B.  M.  59  b. 

6  Mekilta,  1.  c. ;  comp.  Ab.  d.  R.  N.  XXXVI,  ed.  Schechter,  107. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


419 


following  parable  in  the  spirit  of  the  Essenes  illustrates  their 
viewpoint.  In  commenting  upon  the  verse  from  the  Psalms : 
“  The  Lord  keepeth  the  strangers,”  the  story  is  told :  A  king 
possessed  a  flock  of  sheep  and  goats  and  noted  that  a  deer 
joined  them,  accompanying  them  to  their  pasture  and  return¬ 
ing  with  them.  So  he  said  to  the  herdsmen  :  “Take  good  care 
of  this  deer  of  mine  which  has  left  the  free  and  broad  desert 
to  go  in  and  out  with  my  flock,  and  do  not  let  it  suffer  hunger 
or  thirst.”  Likewise  God  takes  special  delight  in  the  prose¬ 
lytes  who  leave  their  own  nation,  giving  up  their  fellowship 
with  the  great  multitude  in  order  to  worship  Him  as  the  One 
and  Only  God,  together  with  the  little  people  of  Israel.1  Simi¬ 
larly  the  Biblical  verse  concerning  wisdom  :  “I  love  them  that 
love  me,  and  those  that  seek  me  earnestly  shall  find  me”2  is 
referred  to  the  proselytes,  “who  give  up  their  entire  past  from 
pure  love  of  God,  and  place  their  lives  under  the  sheltering 
wings  of  the  divine  majesty.”  All  these  Midrashic  passages 
and  many  others  are  but  feeble  echoes  of  the  conceptions  of 
the  Hellenistic  propaganda,  which  were  so  ably  set  forth  by 
Philo  and  the  Book  of  Asenath.  Indeed,  Judaism  must  have 
exerted  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  cultured  world  of  Hellas 
and  Rome  in  those  days,  as  is  evidenced  both  in  the  Hellenistic 
writings  of  the  Jew  and  in  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers  them¬ 
selves.  Their  very  defamation  of  Judaism  unwittingly  gives 
testimony  to  the  danger  to  which  Judaism  exposed  the  pagan 
conception  of  life,  and  to  the  hold  it  took  upon  many  of  the 
heathen.3 

10.  The  reaction  against  this  missionary  movement  took 
place  in  Judea.  The  enforced  conversion  of  the  Idumeans 
to  Judaism  by  John  Hyrcanus  benefited  neither  the  nation  nor 
the  faith  of  the  Jew,  and  turned  the  school  of  Shammai,  which 
belonged  to  the  party  of  the  Zealots,  entirely  against  the  whole 

1  Midi.  Teh.  Ps.  CXLVI,  9;  Num.  R.  VIII,  2. 

2  Prov.  VIII,  17;  Num.  R.,  1.  c.  3  Schuerer,  I.  c.,  Ill,  4;  Radin,  1.  c. 


420 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


system  of  proselytism.  On  the  whole,  bitter  experience  taught 
the  Jews  distrust  of  conversions  due  to  fear,  such  as  those  of  the 
Samaritans  who  feared  the  lions  that  killed  the  inhabitants,  or 
to  political  and  social  advantage,  like  those  under  David  and 
Solomon,  or  in  the  days  of  Mordecai  and  Esther,  or  still  later 
under  John  Hyrcanus.1  Instead,  all  stress  was  laid  upon  reli¬ 
gious  conviction  and  loyalty  to  the  law.  In  fact,  Josephus  men¬ 
tions  many  proselytes  who  in  his  time  fell  away  from  Judaism,2 
who  may  perhaps  have  been  converts  to  Christianity.  The 
later  Halakah,  fixed  under  the  influence  of  the  Hadrianic  per¬ 
secution  and  quoted  in  the  Talmud  as  Baraitha,  prescribes  the 
following  mode  of  admission  for  the  time  after  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple,  omitting  significantly  much  that  was  used  in 
the  preceding  period:3  “If  a  person  desires  to  join  Judaism 
as  a  proselyte,  let  him  first  learn  of  the  sad  lot  of  the  Jewish 
people  and  their  martyrdom,  so  as  to  be  dissuaded  from  join- 
ing.  If,  however,  he  persists  in  his  intention,  let  him  be  in¬ 
structed  in  a  number  of  laws,  both  prohibitory  and  mandatory, 
easy  and  hard  to  observe,  and  be  informed  also  as  to  the  pun¬ 
ishment  for  their  disobedience  and  the  reward  for  fulfillment. 
After  he  has  then  declared  his  willingness  to  accept  the  belief 
in  God  and  to  adhere  to  His  law,  he  must  submit  to  the  rite  of 
circumcision  in  the  presence  of  two  members  of  the  Pharisean 
community,  take  the  baptismal  bath,  and  is  then  fully  admitted 
into  the  Jewish  fold.”  It  is  instructive  to  compare  this 
Halakic  rule  with  the  manual  for  proselytes  preserved  by  the 
Church  under  the  name  of  “The  Two  Ways,”  but  in  a 
revised  form.4  The  mode  of  admission  in  the  Halakah 
seems  modeled  superficially  after  the  more  elaborate  one 
of  the  earlier  code,  where  the  Shema  as  the  Jewish  creed 
and  the  Ten  Commandments,  possibly  with  the  addition 

1  Yeb.  24  b ;  Yer.  Kid.,  IV,  65  b.  2  Apion,  II;  IO>  3# 

8  Yeb.  47  a;  comp.  Mas.  Gerim  I. 

4  See  J.  E.,  art.  Didache  and  Klein,  1.  c. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


421 


of  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  chapters  of  Leviticus  and 
the  twenty-seventh  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  seem  to  have 
formed  the  basis  for  the  instruction  and  the  solemn  oath 
of  the  proselyte. 

11.  As  long  as  the  Jewish  people  possessed  a  flourishing 
world-wide  commerce,  unhampered  by  the  power  of  the 
Church,  they  were  still  joined  by  numerous  proselytes  in  the 
various  lands  and  enjoyed  general  confidence.  Indeed,  many 
prominent  members  of  the  Roman  nobility  became  zealous 
adherents  of  Judaism,  such  as  Aquilas,  the  translator  of  the 
Bible,  and  Clemens  Flavius,  the  senator  of  the  Imperial  house,1 
and  many  prominent  Jewish  masters  were  said  to  be  descend¬ 
ants  of  illustrious  proselytes.2  All  this  changed  as  soon  as  the 
Christian  Church  girded  herself  with  “the  sword  of  Esau.” 
From  that  time  on  proselytism  became  a  peril  and  a  source 
of  evil  to  the  Jew.  The  sages  no  longer  took  pride  in  the 
prophetic  promise  that  “the  stranger  will  join  himself  to 
Israel,”  nor  did  they  find  in  the  words  “and  they  shall  cleave  to 
the  house  of  Jacob”  an  allusion  to  the  prediction  that  some 
of  these  proselytes  would  be  added  “to  the  priesthood  of  the 
Lord,”  as  some  earlier  teachers  had  interpreted  the  passage.3 
R.  Helbo  of  the  fourth  century,  on  the  contrary,  explained  that 
proselytes  have  become  a  plague  like  “leprosy”  for  the  house 
of  Jacob,  taking  the  Hebrew  nispehu  as  an  allusion  to  the  word 
Sappahat ,  “leprosy.”  4  Henceforth  all  attempts  at  proselytism 
were  deprecated  and  discouraged,  while  uncircumcised  prose¬ 
lytes,  —  probably  meaning  the  persecuting  Christians  —  were 
relegated  to  Gehinnom.5 

1  Git.  56  b ;  Ab.  Z.  10  b ;  on  Clemens  see  Graetz :  H.  J.  II,  387-389 ;  but 
see  literature  in  Schuerer,  1.  c.,  Ill4,  169. 

2  Git.  56  b-57. 

3  Ex.  R.  XIX,  4 ;  comp.  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  LXXXVII,  4,  ref.  to  I  Sam.  II, 
36  and  Isa.  LXVI,  2 ;  comp.  Bacher :  Agada  d.  Palest.  Amoraer.,  Ill,  45,  363. 

4  Yeb.  47  b;  109  b;  Kid.  70  b,  ref.  Isa.  XIV  to  Lev.  XIV,  56. 

6  Ex.  R.  XIX,  5. 


422 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


12.  This  view  was  not  shared  by  all  contemporaries,  how¬ 
ever.  R.  Abbahu  of  Caesarea,  who  had  many  an  interesting 
and  bitter  dispute  with  his  Christian  fellow-citizens,1  was 
broad-minded  enough  to  declare  the  proselytes  to  be  genuine 
worshipers  of  God.2  Joshua  ben  Hanania  encouraged  the 
proselyte  Aquilas  and  prognosticated  great  success  for  prose¬ 
lytes  in  general  as  teachers  of  both  the  Haggada  and  Halakah. 
So  other  Haggadists  urged  special  love  and  compassion  for  the 
half-proselyte,3  and  entertained  a  special  hope  of  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  age  that  many  heathen  should  turn  to  God  in  sincerity 
of  heart.4  At  all  events,  it  was  considered  a  great  sin  to  re¬ 
proach  a  convert  with  his  idolatrous  past.5  Indeed,  the  phrase, 
“they  that  fear  the  Lord,”  used  so  often  in  the  Psalms,  is  re¬ 
ferred  by  the  Haggadists  to  the  proselytes;  true,  the  chief 
stress  is  laid  upon  the  full  proselytes,  the  Gere  Zedek ,  but  a 
foremost  place  in  the  world  to  come  is  still  reserved  for  God- 
worshipers  like  the  Emperor  Antoninus.6  Thus  Psalm 
CXXVIII,  which  speaks  of  the  “God-fearing  man,”  was 
applied  to  the  proselyte,  to  whom  were  therefore  promised 
temporal  bliss  and  eternal  salvation,  rejoicing  in  the  Law, 
in  deeds  of  love  and  bounteous  blessing  from  Zion.7  While  the 
Halakah  remained  antagonistic  to  proselytism  on  account 
of  its  narrow  adherence  to  the  spirit  of  the  Priestly  Code,  the 
Haggadah  exhibits  a  broader  view.  Resonant  with  the 
spirit  of  prophecy,  it  beckons  to  all  men  to  come  and  seek 
shelter  under  the  wings  of  the  one  and  only  God,  in  order  to 
disseminate  light  and  love  all  over  the  world. 

13.  Modern  Judaism,  quickened  anew  with  the  spirit  of 
the  ancient  seers  of  Israel,  cannot  remain  bound  by  a  later 
and  altogether  too  rigid  Halakah.  At  the  very  beginning  of 

1  See  Bacher,  1.  c.,  II,  115-118.  2  Num.  R.  VIII,  1. 

3  Gen.  R.  LXX,  5.  4  Ab.  Z.  3  b.  5  B.  M.  59  b. 

6  Midr.  Teh.  Ps.  XXII,  34;  here  also  a  later  Haggadist  removes  the  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  half-proselytes.  See  Buber,  1.  c. ;  Yer.  Meg.  I,  72  b. 

?  Num.  R.  VIII,  10. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSELYTE 


423 


the  Talmudic  period  stands  Hillel,  the  liberal  sage  and  master 
of  the  law,  who,  like  Abraham  of  old,  extended  the  hand  of 
fellowship  to  all  who  wished  to  know  God  and  His  law;  he 
actually  pushed  aside  the  national  bounds  to  make  way  for 
a  faith  of  love  for  God  and  the  fellow  man.  For  this  is  the 
significance  of  his  answer  to  the  Roman  scoffer  who  wanted 
to  hear  the  law  expounded  while  he  was  standing  on  one  foot : 
“ Whatever  is  hateful  to  thee,  do  not  do  to  thy  fellow  man! 
That  is  the  law ;  all  the  rest  is  only  commentary.”  1  Thus  the 
leaders  of  progressive  Judaism  also  have  stepped  out  of  the 
dark  prison  walls  of  the  Talmudic  Ghetto  and  reasserted  the 
humanitarian  principles  of  the  founders  of  the  Synagogue, 
who  welcomed  the  proselytes  into  Israel  and  introduced  special 
blessings  for  them  into  the  liturgy.  They  declare  again,  with 
the  author  of  Psalm  LXXXVII,  that  Zion,  the  “city  of  God,” 
should  be,  not  a  national  center  of  Israel,  but  the  metropolis  of 
humanity,  because  Judaism  is  destined  to  be  a  universal  religion.2 

Not  that  Judaism  is  to  follow  the  proselytizing  methods  of 
the  Church,  which  aims  to  capture  souls  by  wholesale  conver¬ 
sion  without  due  regard  for  the  attitude  or  conviction  of  the  in¬ 
dividual.  But  we  can  no  longer  afford  to  shut  the  gate  to  those 
who  wish  to  enter,  impelled  by  conviction  or  other  motives 
having  a  religious  bearing,  even  though  they  do  not  conform  to 
the  Talmudic  law.3  This  attitude  guided  the  leaders  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Reform  Judaism  at  the  rabbinical  conference  under  the 
presidency  of  Isaac  M.  Wise,  when  they  considered  the  ad¬ 
mission  of  proselytes  at  the  present  time.  In  their  decision 
they  followed  the  maxim  of  the  prophet  of  yore :  “Open  the 
gates  (of  Judaism)  that  a  righteous  nation  may  enter  that 
keepeth  the  faith.”  4 

14.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  Philo  of  Alexandria 
contrasts  those  who  join  the  Jewish  faith  with  those  who  have 

1  Shab.  31a.  2  See  com.  to  Ps.  LXXXVII,  and  LXX  version. 

8  Yearb.  C.  C.  A.  R.,  1891,  1892,  1895.  4  Isa.  XXVI,  2. 


424 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


become  apostates.  The  former,  he  says,  become  at  once  pru¬ 
dent,  temperate,  modest,  gentle,  kind,  human,  reverential,  just, 
magnanimous,  lovers  of  truth,  and  superior  to  the  tempta¬ 
tions  of  wealth  and  pleasure,  whereas  the  latter  are  intemperate, 
unchaste,  unjust,  irreverent,  low-minded,  quarrelsome,  accus¬ 
tomed  to  falsehood  and  perjury,  and  ready  to  sell  their  freedom 
for  sensual  pleasures  of  all  kinds.1  In  the  times  of  Hellenic 
culture  apostasy  made  its  appearance  among  the  upper 
classes  of  the  Jews.  As  the  higher-minded  among  the  heathen 
world  were  drawn  towards  the  sublime  monotheistic  faith  of 
the  Jew,  so  the  pleasure-seeking  and  worldly-minded  among 
the  Jews  were  attracted  by  the  allurements  of  Greek  culture 
to  become  faithless  to  the  God  of  Israel,  break  away  from  the 
law,  and  violate  the  covenant.  Especially  under  Syrian  rule, 
apostasy  became  a  real  danger  to  the  Jewish  community,  and 
many  measures  had  to  be  decided  upon  to  avert  it.  The 
desertion  of  the  ancestral  faith  was  looked  upon  as  rebellion 
and  treason  against  God  and  Israel.2  With  the  rise  of  the 
Christian  Church  to  power  and  influence  the  number  of  apos¬ 
tates  increased,  and  with  it  also  the  danger  to  the  small  com¬ 
munity  of  the  Jews  in  the  various  lands.  In  the  same  measure 
as  the  Church  made  a  meritorious  practice  of  the  conversion 
of  the  Jews,  whether  by  persuasive  means  or  by  force  and  per¬ 
secution,  the  authorities  of  Judaism  had  to  provide  the  Jew 
with  spiritual  weapons  of  self-defense  in  the  shape  of  polemical 
and  apologetic  writings,3  and  to  warn  him  against  too  close  a 
contact  with  the  apostate,  which  was  too  often  fraught  with 
peril  for  the  whole  community.  As  a  number  of  these  apos¬ 
tates  became  actual  maligners  of  the  Jews  under  the  Roman 
empire,  a  special  malediction  against  sectarians,  the  so-called 
Birkat  ha-Minim ,  was  inserted  in  the  Eighteen  Benedictions 

1  Philo,  De  Penitentia,  2. 

2  See  J.  E.,  art.  Apostasy  and  Apostates. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Apologetic  and  Polemical  Literature. 


THE  STRANGER  AND  THE  PROSEYLTE 


425 


under  the  direction  of  Gamaliel  II.1  “Those  who  have  ema¬ 
nated  from  my  own  midst  hurt  me  most,”  says  the  Synagogue, 
referring  to  herself  the  words  of  the  Sulamite  in  the  Song  of 
Songs.2  While  every  other  offender  from  among  the  Jewish 
people  is  declared  to  be  “brother,”  notwithstanding  his  sin,3 
the  apostate  was  declared  to  be  one  from  whom  no  free-will 
offering  was  to  be  accepted,4  and  to  whom  the  gates  of  repent¬ 
ance  and  the  gates  of  salvation  are  forever  closed.5  The  feeling 
of  bitterness  against  him  grew  in  intensity,  as  throughout  Jew¬ 
ish  history  he  often  played  the  despicable  role  of  an  accuser 
of  his  former  coreligionists  and  betrayer  of  their  faith.  The 
modern  Jew  also,  though  he  sympathizes  with  every  liberal 
movement  among  men  and  respects  every  honest  opinion,  how¬ 
ever  radically  different  from  his  own,  cannot  but  behold  in 
the  attitude  of  him  who  deserts  the  small  yet  heroic  band  of 
defenders  of  his  ancient  faith  and  joins  the  great  and  power¬ 
ful  majority  around  him,  a  disloyalty  and  weakness  of  char¬ 
acter  unworthy  of  a  son  of  Abraham,  the  faithful.  Since  the 
beginning  of  the  new  era  in  the  time  of  Mendelssohn,  apostasy 
has  made  great  inroads  upon  the  numerical  and  intellectual 
strength  of  Judaism,  especially  among  the  upper  classes.  It 
is  no  longer,  however,  of  an  aggressive  character,  but  rather 
a  result  of  the  lack  of  Jewish  self-respect  and  religious  senti¬ 
ment,  against  which  measures  tending  to  a  revival  of  the 
Jewish  spirit  are  being  taken  more  and  more.  The  Jews  are 
called  by  the  rabbis  “the  faithful  sons  of  the  faithful.”  The 
apostate  must  be  made  to  feel  that  he  is  of  a  lower  type, 
since  he  has  become  a  deserter  from  the  army  of  the  battlers 
for  the  Lord,  the  Only  One  God  of  Israel. 

1  Ber.  28  a;  Singer’s  Prayerb.  48.  2  Cant.  R.  I.  6. 

3  Deut.  XXV,  3  and  Sifre  ad  loc. ;  Sanh.  44  a.  4  Sifra  Wayikra  2. 

6  Sifre  Num.  112;  R.  H.,  17  a;  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  5. 


CHAPTER  LVII 


Christianity  and  Mohammedanism,  the  Daughter- 

Religions  of  Judaism 

i.  “It  shall  come  to  pass  on  that  day  that  living  waters 
shall  go  out  from  Jerusalem ;  half  of  them  toward  the  eastern 
sea  and  half  of  them  toward  the  western  sea.  .  .  .  And  the 
Lord  shall  be  King  over  all  the  earth;  in  that  day  shall  the 
Lord  be  One,  and  His  name  one.”  1  These  prophetic  words 
of  Zechariah  may  be  applied  to  the  two  great  world-religions 
which  emanated  from  Judaism  and  won  fully  half  of  the  human 
race,  as  it  exists  at  present,  for  the  God  of  Abraham.  Though 
they  have  incorporated  many  non- Jewish  elements  in  their 
systems,  they  have  spread  the  fundamental  truths  of  the 
Jewish  faith  and  Jewish  ethics  to  every  part  of  the  earth. 
Christianity  in  the  West  and  Islam  in  the  East  have  aided  in 
leading  mankind  ever  nearer  to  the  pure  monotheistic  truth. 
Consciously  or  unconsciously,  both  found  their  guiding  motive 
in  the  Messianic  hope  of  the  prophets  of  Israel  and  based  their 
moral  systems  on  the  ethics  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The 
leading  spirits  of  Judaism  recognized  this,  declaring  both  the 
Christian  and  Mohammedan  religions  to  be  agencies  of  Divine 
Providence,  intrusted  with  the  historical  mission  of  cooperat¬ 
ing  in  the  building  up  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  thus  pre¬ 
paring  for  the  ultimate  triumph  of  pure  monotheism  in  the 
hearts  and  lives  of  all  men  and  nations  of  the  world.  These 
views,  voiced  by  Jehuda  ha  Levi,  Maimonides,  and  Nah- 
manides,2  were  reiterated  by  many  enlightened  rabbis  of  later 

1  Zech.  XIV,  8-9. 

2  Cuzari,  IV,  23;  Maim. :  H.  MelakimXI,  41;  Responsa,  58;  Nahmanides: 
Derashah,  ed.  Jellinek,  5  ;  see  Rashi  and  Tosafot  to  Ab.  Z.  2  a,  57  b ;  Sanh.  63  b. 

426 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


427 


times.  These  point  out  that  both  the  Christian  and  Mo¬ 
hammedan  nations  believe  in  the  same  God  and  His  revela¬ 
tion  to  man,  in  the  unity  of  the  human  race,  and  in  the  future 
life ;  that  they  have  spread  the  knowledge  of  God  by  a  sacred 
literature  based  upon  our  Scripture ;  that  they  have  retained 
the  divine  commandments  essentially  as  they  are  phrased 
in  our  Decalogue ;  and  have  practically  taught  men  to  fulfill 
the  Noahitic  laws  of  humanity.1  On  account  of  the  last  fact 
the  medieval  Jewish  authorities  considered  Christians  to  be 
half-proselytes,2  while  the  Mohammedans,  being  pure  mono¬ 
theists,  were  always  still  closer  to  Judaism. 

2.  In  general,  however,  rabbinic  Judaism  was  not  in  a 
position  to  judge  Christianity  impartially,  as  it  never  learned 
to  know  primitive  Christianity  as  presented  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  We  see  no  indication  in  either  the  oldest  Talmudic 
sources  or  Josephus  that  the  movement  made  any  more  im¬ 
pression  in  Galilee  or  Jerusalem  than  the  other  Messianic 
agitations  of  the  time.  All  that  we  learn  concerning  Jesus 
from  the  rabbis  of  the  second  century  and  later  is  that  magic 
arts  were  practiced  by  him  and  his  disciples  who  exorcised 
by  his  name ;  and,  still  worse,  that  the  sect  named  after  him 
was  suspected  of  moral  aberrations  like  a  few  Gnostic  sects, 
known  by  the  collective  name  of  Minim ,  “sectarians.”  3  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  early  Church  was  chiefly  recruited  from 
the  Essenes  and  distinguished  itself  little  from  the  rest  of  the 
Synagogue.  Its  members,  who  are  called  Judaso-Christians, 
continued  to  observe  the  Jewish  law  and  changed  their  atti¬ 
tude  to  it  only  gradually.4  Matters  took  a  different  turn 

1  Solomon  ben  Adret:  Responsa,  302;  Yore  Deah  CXLVI1T,  12;  Jacob 
Emden,  Comm,  to  Abot.  V,  17;  comp.  Chwolson:  D.  Blutanklage,  64-79. 

2  Isaac  ben  Sheshet’s  Responsa ,  119. 

3  Yer.  Shab.  XIV,  14  d;  Ab.  Z.  II,  40  d;  Sota,  47  a;  Sanh.  103  a;  Eccl. 
R.  I,  24-25. 

4  See  J.  E.,  art.  Christianity ;  Ebionites ;  Minim ;  and  comp,  the  various 
Church  Histories. 


428 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


under  the  influence  of  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  heathen,  who 
emphasized  the  antinomian  spirit ;  the  Judaeo-Christian  sects 
were  then  pushed  aside,  hostility  to  Judaism  became  promi¬ 
nent,  and  the  Church  strove  more  and  more  for  a  rapproche¬ 
ment  with  Rome.1  Then  the  rabbis  awoke  to  the  serious 
danger  to  Judaism  from  these  heretics,  Minim ,  when  after  the 
tragic  downfall  of  the  Jewish  nation  they  grew  to  world- 
power  as  allies  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Thus  Isaac  Nappaha, 
a  Haggadist  of  the  fourth  century,  declared:  “The  turning 
point  for  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  the  son  of  David,  will  not 
come  until  the  whole  (Roman)  Empire  has  been  converted 
to  Christianity  ( Minuth ).”  2  This  is  supplemented  by  the 
Babylonian  Rabbah,  who  plays  with  a  Biblical  phrase,  say¬ 
ing  :  “Not  until  the  whole  (Roman)  world  has  turned  to  the 
Son  (of  God).”3  Henceforth  Christian  Rome  was  termed 
Edom ,  like  pagan  Rome  from  the  days  of  Herod  the  Idumean. 
In  fact,  her  imperial  edicts  showed  the  fratricidal  hatred  of 
Esau,  with  hardly  a  trace  of  the  professed  religion  of  love. 
No  wonder  the  Haggadists  identified  Rome  with  the  Biblical 
“Boar  of  the  forest,”  and  waited  impatiently  for  the  time 
when  she  would  have  to  give  up  her  rule  as  the  fourth  world- 
empire  to  the  people  of  God,  ushering  in  the  Messianic  era.4 

3.  Meanwhile  the  relapse  of  Christianity  from  monotheism 
became  more  steady  and  more  apparent.  The  One  God  of 
the  Jew  was  pushed  into  the  background  by  the  “Son  of 
Man”;  and  the  Virgin-Mother  with  her  divine  child  became 
adored  like  the  Queen  of  Heaven  of  pagan  times,  showing 
similarity  especially  to  Isis,  the  Egyptian  mother-goddess, 
with  Horus,  the  young  son-god,  on  her  lap.  The  pagan 
deities  of  the  various  lands  were  transformed  into  saints  of 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Saul  of  Tarsus.  2  Sanh.  97  a. 

3  Lev.  XIII,  13  :  Kullo  happak  laben,  instead  of  laban. 

4  Ab.  d.  R.  N.  XXXIV;  Lev.  R.  XIII,  4  ref.  to  Ps.  LXXX,  14;  Midr. 
Teh.  Ps.,  1.  c. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


429 


the  Church  and  worshiped  by  means  of  images,  in  order  to 
win  the  pagan  masses  for  the  Christian  faith.  The  original 
pure  and  absolute  monotheism  and  the  stern  conception  of 
holiness  were  thus  turned  into  their  very  opposites  by  the 
hierarchy  and  monasticism  of  the  Church.  How,  then,  could 
the  Jewish  people  recognize  the  crucified  Christ  as  one  of  their 
own?  One  whose  preaching  seemed  to  bring  them  only 
damnation  and  death  instead  of  salvation  and  life,  even  while 
speaking  in  the  name  of  Israel’s  God  after  the  manner  of  the 
prophets  of  yore?  How  could  they  see  in  the  strange  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Church  any  resemblance  to  their  own  system  of 
faith,  especially  as  the  very  doctrines  which  repelled  them 
were  those  most  emphasized  by  Christianity?  Maimonides 
considered  the  adherents  of  the  Roman  Church  to  be  idolaters,1 
a  view  which  was  modified  by  the  Jewish  authorities  in  the 
West,  as  they  became  better  acquainted  with  Christian 
doctrines.2 

4.  The  world-empire  of  the  Church  was  subsequently 
divided  between  Rome,  which  the  Jewish  writers  called 
Edom ,3  and  Byzantium,  which  they  named  Yavan,  but  neither 
showed  any  real  advance  in  religious  views  and  ideals.  On 
the  contrary,  they  both  persecuted  with  fire  and  sword  the 
little  people  who  were  faithful  to  their  ancient  monotheism, 
and  suppressed  what  remained  of  learning  and  science.  As 
the  Church  had  the  great  task  of  disciplining  wild  and  semi- 
barbarous  races,  there  was  little  room  left  for  learning  or  for 
high  ideals.  At  this  time  a  rigorous  avenger  of  the  persecuted 
spirit  of  pure  monotheism  arose  among  the  sons  of  Ishmael 
in  the  desert  of  Arabia  in  the  person  of  Mohammed,  a  camel- 

1  H.  Akkum  IX,  4. 

2Tosaf.  Sanh.  63  b;  Isserles  Sh.  Ar.  Orah  Hayim,  156;  comp.  J.  E.  art. 
Sanhedrin,  Napoleonic. 

3  Edom,  the  name  for  Rome  since  the  time  of  the  Idumean  Herod,  became 
the  name  for  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  Yavan  =  Greek  was  the  name  given 
to  the  Greek  Church. 


430 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


driver  of  Mecca,  a  man  of  mighty  passions  and  void  of  learn¬ 
ing,  but  imbued  with  the  fire  of  the  ancient  prophets  of  Israel. 
He  felt  summoned  by  Allah,  the  God  of  Abraham,  to  wage 
war  against  the  idolatry  of  his  nation  and  restore  the  pure 
faith  of  antiquity.  He  kindled  a  flame  in  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen  which  did  not  cease,  until  they  had  proclaimed 
the  unity  of  God  throughout  the  Orient,  had  put  to  flight 
the  trinitarian  dogma  of  the  Church  in  both  Asia  and  Africa, 
and  extended  their  domain  as  far  as  the  Spanish  peninsula. 
He  offered  the  Jews  inducements  to  recognize  him  as  the 
last,  “the  seal,”  of  the  prophets,  by  promising  to  adopt  some 
of  their  religious  practices ;  but  when  they  refused,  he  showed 
himself  fanatical  and  revengeful,  a  genuine  son  of  the  Bed¬ 
ouins,  unrelenting  in  his  wrath  and  ending  his  career  as  a  cruel, 
sensuous  despot  of  the  true  Oriental  type.  Nevertheless, 
he  created  a  religion  which  led  to  a  remarkable  advance¬ 
ment  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  culture,  and  in  which 
Judaism  found  a  valuable  incentive  to  similar  endeavors. 
Thus  Ishmael  proved  a  better  heir  to  Abraham  than  was 
Esau,  the  hostile  brother  of  Jacob.1 

5.  The  important,  yet  delicate  question,  which  of  the 
three  religions  is  the  best,  the  Mohammedan,  Christian  or 
Jewish,  was  answered  most  cleverly  by  Lessing  in  his  Nathan 
the  Wise ,  by  adapting  the  parable  of  the  three  rings,  taken 
from  Boccaccio.  His  conclusion  is  that  the  best  religion  is 
the  one  which  induces  men  best  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
their  fellow  men.2  But  the  question  itself  is  much  older ;  it 
was  discussed  at  the  court  of  the  Kaliphs  in  Bagdad  as  early 
as  the  tenth  century,  where  the  adherents  of  every  religion 

1  On  Ishmael  and  Edom  see  Steinschneider :  Polemisch.  u.  Apologet.  Literature 
256-273 ;  on  Mohammed,  eodem,  302-388. 

2  See  Wuensche  :  “Urspr.  d.  Parabel  v.  d.  drei  Ringen”  in  Lessing-M endels- 
sohn  Gedenkbuch ,  Leipzig,  1879;  comp.  Steinschneider,  1.  c.,  37,  317,  319; 
Hebr.  Bibliogr.  IV,  79;  XII,  21;  Dunlop-Liebrecht :  Gesch.  d.  Prosadichtung, 
p.  221,  note  to  294  f. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


43i 


there  represented  expressed  their  opinions  in  all  candor.  For 
centuries  it  was  the  subject  of  philosophical  and  comparative 
investigations.1  Among  these,  the  most  thorough  and  pro¬ 
found  is  the  Cuzari  by  the  Jewish  philosopher  and  poet,  Jehuda 
ha  Levi.  But  the  parable  of  the  three  rings  also  has  been 
traced  through  Jewish  and  Christian  collections  of  tales 
dating  back  to  the  thirteenth  century,  and  seems  to  be 
originally  the  work  of  a  Jewish  author.  Standing  between 
the  two  powerful  faiths  with  their  appeal  to  the  temporal 
arm,  the  Jew  had  to  resort  to  his  wit  as  almost  his  only  re¬ 
source  for  escape.  Two  Jewish  works  have  preserved  earlier 
forms  of  the  parable.  In  Ibn  Verga’s  collection  of  histories  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  it  is  related  that  “Don  Pedro  the  Elder, 
King  of  Aragon  (1196-1213),  asked  Ephraim  Sancho,  a 
Jewish  sage,  which  of  the  two  religions,  the  Jewish  or  Chris¬ 
tian,  was  the  better  one.  After  three  days’  deliberation,  the 
sage  told  the  king  a  story  of  two  sons  who  had  each  received 
a  precious  stone  from  their  father,  a  jeweler,  when  he  went 
on  a  journey.  The  sons  then  went  to  a  stranger,  threatening 
him  with  violence,  unless  he  would  decide  which  of  the  jewels 
was  the  more  valuable.  The  king,  believing  the  story  to  be 
a  fact,  protested  against  the  action  of  the  two  sons,  where¬ 
upon  the  Jew  explained :  Esau  and  Jacob  are  the  two  sons 
who  have  each  received  a  jewel  from  their  heavenly  Father. 
Instead  of  asking  me  which  jewel  is  the  more  precious,  ask 
God,  the  heavenly  Jeweler.  He  knows  the  difference,  and 
can  tell  the  two  apart.”  2 

An  older  and  probably  more  original  form  of  the  parable 
was  discovered  by  Steinschneider  in  a  work  by  Abraham 
Abulafia  of  the  thirteenth  century,  running  as  follows:  “A 
father  intended  to  bequeath  a  precious  jewel  to  his  only  son, 
but  was  exasperated  by  his  ingratitude,  and  therefore  buried 

1  See  Schreiner:  D.juengst.  TJrteile  u.  d.  Judenth 3-5. 

2  Shebet  Yehudah ,  ed.  Wiener,  p.  107.  See  Steinschneider :  Heb.  Bibh,  1.  c. 


43  2 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY  3 


it.  His  servants,  however,  knowing  of  the  treasure,  took  it 
and  claimed  to  have  received  it  from  the  father.  In  the 
course  of  time  they  became  so  arrogant  that  the  son  repented 
of  his  conduct,  whereupon  the  father  gave  him  the  jewel 
as  his  rightful  possession.”  The  story  ends  by  stating 
that  Israel  is  the  son  and  the  Moslem  and  Christian  the 
servants. 

Beside  this  witty  solution  of  a  delicate  problem,  some 
Mohammedans  made  attempts  very  early,  doubtless  on  ac¬ 
count  of  discussions  with  learned  Jews,  to  prove  the  justi¬ 
fication  of  the  three  religions  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
themselves.  Thus  they  referred  the  verse  speaking  of  the 
revelation  of  God  on  Sinai,  Mount  Seir,  and  Mount  Paran 1 
to  the  religious  teachings  of  Moses,  Jesus,  and  Mohammed. 
Naturally,  the  Jewish  exegetes  and  philosophers  objected 
vigorously  to  such  an  interpretation. 

6.  The  question  which  religion  is  the  best,  has  been  most 
satisfactorily  answered  for  Judaism  by  R.  Joshua  ben  Hanania, 
who  said  that  “the  righteous  of  the  heathen  have  also  a  share 
in  the  world  to  come.”  2  The  question  which  religion  is  true, 
has  been,  alas,  too  long  arbitrated  by  the  sword,  and  will  be 
decided  peacefully  only  when  the  whole  earth  will  be  full  of 
the  knowledge  of  God.  Our  own  age,  however,  has  begun  to 
examine  the  title  to  existence  of  every  religion  from  the  broad 
standpoint  of  history  and  ethnology,  assigning  to  each  its  proper 
rank.  In  this  large  purview  even  the  crude  beliefs  of  savages 
are  shown  to  be  of  value,  and  the  various  heathen  religions 
are  seen  to  have  a  historical  task  of  their  own.  Each  of  them 
has  to  some  extent  awakened  the  dormant  divine  spark  in 
man  ;  one  has  aided  in  the  growth  of  the  ideal  of  the  beautiful 
in  art,  another  in  the  rise  of  the  ideal  of  the  true  in  philosophy 
and  science;  a  third  in  the  cultivation  of  the  ideal  of  the 

1  Deut.  XXXIII,  2 ;  see  Steinschneider :  “Pol.  u.  Apol.  Lit.,”  317  f. 

*  Tos.  Sanh.  XIII,  2 ;  Sanh.  105  a ;  Maimonides :  H.  Teshubah  III,  5. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


433 


good  and  in  stimulating  sympathy  and  love  so  as  to  ennoble 
men  and  nations.  Thus  after  a  careful  examination  of  the 
historical  documents  of  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan 
religions,  it  is  possible  to  state  clearly  their  great  historic 
mission  and  their  achievements  in  the  whole  domain  of  civili¬ 
zation.  The  Jewish  religion,  as  the  mother  who  gave  birth 
to  both,  must  deliver  the  verdict,  how  far  they  still  contrib¬ 
ute  to  the  upbuilding  of  God’s  kingdom  on  earth.  In  ful¬ 
filling  their  appointed  mission,  each  has  given  rise  to  valuable 
and  peculiar  institutions,  and  each  has  fallen  short  of  the 
Messianic  ideal  as  visualized  by  our  great  prophets  of  old. 
Only  an  impartial  judgment  can  say  which  one  has  reached 
the  higher  stage  of  civilization. 

7.  Christianity’s  origin  from  Judaism  is  proved  by  its 
religious  documents  as  well  as  by  its  very  name,  which  is 
derived  from  the  Greek  for  the  title  Messiah  {Christos),  be¬ 
stowed  on  the  Nazarene  by  his  followers.  Still  the  name 
Christianity  arose  in  Antioch  among  non- Jews  who  scarcely 
knew  its  meaning.  All  the  sources  of  the  New  Testament, 
however  much  they  conflict  in  details,  agree  that  the  move¬ 
ment  of  Christianity  began  with  the  appearance  of  John  the 
Baptist,  a  popular  Essene  saint.  He  rallied  the  multitude 
at  the  shore  of  the  Jordan,  preparing  them  for  the  approach¬ 
ing  end  of  the  Roman  world-kingdom  with  the  proclamation, 
“  Wash  yourselves  clean  from  your  sins !”  that  is,  “Take  the 
baptismal  bath  of  repentance,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
nigh.”  1  He  conferred  the  baptismal  bath  of  repentance  upon 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  the  first  apostles.2  Jesus  took  up  this 
message  when  John  was  imprisoned  and  finally  killed  by 

1  Matt.  Ill,  2 ;  Luke  III,  3 ;  Josephus :  Ant.  XVIII,  5,  2 ;  see  J.  E.,  art. 
John  the  Baptist.  Perhaps  John  was  identical  with  Hanan,  “the  hidden  one/’ 
a  popular  saint  called  “father”  by  the  people,  and  believed  to  be  a  descendant 
of  Moses,  a  grandson  of  Onias  the  rainmaker,  and  a  rain-invoking  saint  himself. 
See  Taan.  23  b;  Tanh.  Waera,  ed.  Buber,  II,  37. 

2  Matt.  Ill,  33 ;  Mark  I,  7 ;  Luke  III,  21 ;  John  I,  29-40. 


434 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Herod  Antipas  on  account  of  his  preachment  against  him.1 
The  life  of  Jesus  is  wrapt  in  legends  which  may  be  reduced 
to  the  following  historical  elements  : 2  The  young  Nazarene 
was  of  an  altogether  different  temperament  from  that  of  John 
the  Baptist,  the  stern,  Elijah-like  preacher  in  the  wilderness ; 3 
he  manifested  as  preacher  and  as  a  healer  of  the  sick  a  pro¬ 
found  love  for,  and  tender  sympathy  with  suffering  humanity, 
a  trait  especially  fostered  among  the  Essenes.  This  drew  him 
toward  that  class  of  people  who  were  shunned  as  unclean  by 
the  uncompromising  leaders  of  the  Pharisees,  and  also  by 
the  rigid  brotherhoods  of  the  Essenes,  whose  chief  object  was 
to  attain  the  highest  degree  of  holiness  by  a  life  of  asceticism. 
His  simple  countrymen,  the  fishers  and  shepherds  of  Galilee,  on 
hearing  his  wise  and  humane  teachings  and  seeing  his  miracu¬ 
lous  cures,  considered  him  a  prophet  and  a  conqueror  of  the 
hosts  of  demons,  the  workers  of  disease.  In  contrast  to  the 
learned  Pharisees,  he  felt  it  to  be  his  calling  to  bring  the  good 
tidings  of  salvation  to  the  poor  and  outcast,  to  “seek  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel”  and  win  them  for  God.  He  soon 
found  himself  surrounded  by  a  multitude  of  followers,  who, 
on  a  Passover  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem,  induced  him  to  an¬ 
nounce  himself  as  the  expected  Messiah.  He  attracted  the 
people  in  Jerusalem  by  his  vehement  attacks  upon  the 
Sadducean  hierarchy,  which  he  threatened  with  the  wrath  of 
heaven  for  its  abuses,  and  also  by  his  denunciations  of  the 
self-sufficient  Pharisean  doctors  of  the  law.  Soon  the  crisis 
came  when  he  openly  declared  war  against  the  avarice  of  the 
priests,  who  owned  the  markets  where  the  sacrificial  fowl  for 
the  Temple  were  sold,  overthrowing  the  tables  of  the  money¬ 
changers,  and  declaring  the  Temple  to  have  become  “a  den 

1  Matt.  IV,  12;  XIV,  10. 

2  J.  E.,  art.  Christianity;  Jesus;  New  Testament;  Simon  Kaifa.  Among 
the  Gospels,  that  of  Luke  has  the  oldest  records,  rather  than  Mark.  See  also 
Spitta:  D.  Synoptische  Grundschrijt. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  John  the  Baptist. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


435 


of  robbers.” 1  The  hierarchical  council  delivered  him  to 
Pontius  Pilatus,  the  Roman  prefect,  as  an  aspirant  to  the 
royal  title  of  Messiah,  which  in  the  eyes  of  the  Romans  meant 
a  revolutionary  leader.  The  Roman  soldiers  crucified  him 
and  mocked  him,  calling  him,  “  Jesus,  the  king  of  the  Jews.”  2 

The  fate  of  crucifixion,  however,  did  not  end  the  career  of 
Jesus,  as  it  had  that  of  many  other  claimants  to  the  Messiah- 
ship  in  those  turbulent  times.  His  personality  had  impressed 
itself  so  deeply  upon  his  followers  that  they  could  not  admit 
that  he  had  gone  from  them  forever.  They  awaited  his 
resurrection  and  return  in  all  the  heavenly  glory  of  the  “Son 
of  Man,”  and  saw  him  in  their  ecstatic  visions,  attending  their 
love-feasts,3  or  walking  about  on  the  lake  of  Nazareth  while 
they  were  fishing  from  their  boats,  or  hovering  at  the  sum¬ 
mit  of  the  mountains.4  This  was  but  the  starting  point  of 
that  remarkable  religious  movement  which  grew  first  among 
the  lower  classes  in  northern  Palestine  and  Syria,5  then  gradu¬ 
ally  throughout  the  entire  Roman  Empire,  shaking  the  whole 
of  heathendom  until  all  its  deities  gave  way  to  the  God  of 
Israel,  the  divine  Father  of  the  crucified  Messiah.  The 
Jewish  tidings  of  salvation  for  the  poor  and  lowly  offered  by 
the  Nazarene  became  the  death-knell  to  the  proud  might  of 
paganism. 

8.  But  the  ways  of  Providence  are  as  inscrutable  as  they 
are  wonderful.  The  poor  and  lowly  members  of  the  early 
Christian  Churches,  with  their  leaders,  called  “apostles”  or 
“messengers”  of  the  community,  —  elected  originally  to  carry 
out  works  of  charity  and  love,6  —  would  never  have  been  able 

1  Matt.  XXI,  12,  and  parallels;  comp.  Yer.  Taan.  IV,  8;  Tos.  Menah. 
XIII,  21. 

2  Matt.  XXVII,  37-42,  and  parallels. 

3  John  XX ;  the  latter  part  of  the  Gospel  of  John  belonged  originally  to 
Matthew. 

4  Matt.  XIV,  24  f. ;  XVII,  1;  see  Wellhausen  :  Comm. 

5  See  J.  E.,  art.  Ebionites.  6  See  J.  E.,  art.  Apostles. 


4  36 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


to  conquer  the  great  world,  if  they  had  persisted  in  the  Essene 
traditions.  They  owed  their  success  to  the  large  Hellenistic 
groups  who  joined  them  at  an  early  period  and  introduced 
the  Greek  language  as  their  medium  of  expression.  Hence¬ 
forth  the  propaganda  activity  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews  was 
adopted  by  the  young  Church,  which  likewise  took  up  all  the 
works  of  wisdom  and  ethics  written  in  Greek  for  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  the  proselytes  and  the  young,  scarcely  known  to  the 
Palestinian  schools.  The  Essene  baptism  for  repentance  was 
replaced  by  baptism  for  conversion  or  initiation  into  the  new 
faith,  while  the  neophyte  to  be  prepared  for  this  rite  was  for 
a  long  time  instructed  mainly  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Jewish 
faith.1  Subsequently  collections  of  wise  sayings  and  moral 
teachings  ascribed  to  the  Nazarene  and  handed  down  in  the 
Aramaic  vernacular,  orally  or  in  writing,  were  translated  into 
Greek.  These  together  with  the  manuals  for  proselytes  were 
the  original  Church  teachings.  The  Greek  language  paved  the 
way  for  the  Church  to  enter  the  great  pagan  world,  exactly  as 
the  Greek  translation  of  the  Bible  in  Alexandria  brought  the 
teachings  of  Judaism  to  the  knowledge  of  the  outside  world. 

At  first  the  same  obstacle  confronted  the  early  Church 
which  had  prevented  the  Synagogue  from  becoming  a  world 
conqueror,  namely,  the  rite  of  circumcision,  which  was  re¬ 
quired  for  full  membership.  Without  this,  baptized  converts 
were  only  half-proselytes  and  could  not  be  fully  assimilated. 
This  classification  was  still  upheld  by  the  Apostolic  Conven¬ 
tion,  which  met  under  the  presidency  of  James  the  Elder.2 
The  time  was  ripe  for  a  bold  and  radical  innovation,  and  at 
this  psychological  moment  arose  a  man  of  great  zeal  and  un¬ 
bridled  energy  as  well  as  of  a  creative  genius  and  a  mystical 
imagination,  —  Saul  of  Tarsus,  known  by  his  Roman  name 

1  J.  E.,  art.  Didache  and  Didascalia ;  Klein,  1.  c. 

2  Acts  XV,  5-29;  comp.  R.  Seeberg:  Das  Aposteldecret ;  Didache  u.  d. 
U  rchristenheit. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


437 


Paulus.1  He  had  been  sent  by  the  authorities  at  Jerusalem 
to  pursue  the  adherents  of  the  new  sect,  but  when  he  had 
come  as  far  as  Damascus  in  Syria,  he  suddenly  turned  from  a 
persecutor  into  the  most  ardent  promoter  of  the  nascent 
Church,  impelled  by  a  strange  hallucination.  Paul  was  a 
carpet  weaver  by  trade,  born  and  reared  in  Tarsus,  a  seaport 
of  Asia  Minor,  where  he  seems  to  have  had  a  Greek  training 
and  to  have  imbibed  Gnostic  or  semi-pagan  ideas  beside  his 
Biblical  knowledge.  In  this  ecstatic  vision  on  his  journey  he 
beheld  the  figure  of  Jesus,  “the  crucified  Christ,”  whose  ad¬ 
herents  he  was  pursuing,  yet  whom  he  had  never  seen  in  the 
flesh,  appearing  as  a  heavenly  being  whom  Paul  identified  as 
the  heavenly  Adam,  the  archetypal  “godlike”  man. 

Upon  this  strange  vision  he  constructed  a  theological  sys¬ 
tem  far  more  pagan  than  Jewish  in  type,  according  to  which 
man  was  corrupt  through  the  sin  of  the  first  couple,  and  the 
death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  was  to  be  the  atoning  sacrifice 
offered  by  God  himself,  who  gave  His  own  son  as  a  ransom 
for  the  sins  of  humanity.  This  doctrine  he  used  as  a  lever 
with  which,  at  one  bold  stroke,  he  was  to  unhinge  the  Mosaic 
law  and  make  the  infant  Church  a  world-religion.  Through 
baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Christ,  the  old  sin-laden  Adam  was 
to  be  cast  off  and  the  new  heavenly  Adam,  in  the  image  of 
Christ,  put  on  instead.  The  new  covenant  of  God’s  atoning 
love  was  to  replace  the  old  covenant  of  Sinai,  to  abolish  forever 
the  old  covenant  based  upon  the  Jewish  law,  and  to  set  man¬ 
kind  free  from  all  law,  “which  begets  sin  and  works  wrath.” 
In  Christ,  “who  is  the  end  of  the  law,”  the  sinfulness  of  the 
flesh  should  be  overcome  and  the  gates  of  salvation  be  opened 
to  a  world  redeemed  from  both  death  and  sin.2  The  one 

1  J.  E.,  art.  Saul  of  Tarsus. 

2  Paul’s  opposition  to  the  law  includes  the  moral  law,  and  even  the  Dec¬ 
alogue.  See  Romans  VII-VIII;  X,  4;  XIV;  I  Cor.  VI,  1-3,  15;  VII,  31; 
VIII;  II  Cor.  Ill,  3. 


43^ 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


essential  for  salvation  was  to  accept  the  mystery  concerning 
the  birth  and  death  of  Christ,  after  the  manner  of  the  heathen 
mystery-religions,  and  to  employ  as  sacramental  symbols  of 
the  mystery  the  rites  of  baptism  and  communion  with  Christ. 

9.  This  system  of  Paul,  however,  demanded  a  high  price  of 
its  votaries.  Acceptance  of  the  belief  meant  the  surrender 
of  reason  and  free  thinking.  This  breach  in  pure  monotheism 
opened  the  door  for  the  whole  heathen  mythology  and  the 
worship  of  the  heathen  deities  in  a  new  form.  But  the 
saddest  result  was  the  dualism  of  the  system ;  the  kingdom 
of  God  predicted  by  the  prophets  and  sages  of  Israel  for  all 
humanity  was  transferred  to  the  hereafter,  and  this  life  with 
all  its  healthy  aspirations  was  considered  sinful  and  in  the 
hands  of  Satan.  The  cross,  originally  a  sign  of  life,1  became 
from  this  time  and  through  the  Middle  Ages  a  sign  of  death, 
casting  a  shadow  of  sin  upon  the  Christian  world  and  a 
shadow  of  terror  upon  the  Jew. 

The  greatest  harm  of  all,  however,  was  done  to  Judaism 
itself.  Paul  made  a  caricature  of  the  Law,  which  he  declared 
to  be  a  rigid,  external  system,  not  elevating  life,  but  only 
inciting  to  transgression  and  engendering  curse.  He  even 
aroused  a  feeling  of  hatred  toward  the  Law,  which  grew  in 
intensity,  until  it  became  a  source  of  untold  cruelty  for  many 
centuries.  This  spirit  permeated  the  Gospels  more  and  more 
in  their  successive  appearance,  even  finding  its  way  into  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  In  the  simple  form  given  in  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  this  was  a  teaching  of  love  and  tenderness; 
in  Matthew,  Jesus  is  represented  as  offering  a  new  dispensa¬ 
tion  to  replace  the  revelation  of  Sinai.2  Here  the  Mosaic 
law  is  presented  as  a  system  of  commandments  demanding 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Cross. 

2  Luke  VI,  20-49;  comp,  with  Matt.  V-VII;  XXIII,  15-36.  See  Claude 
Montefiore,  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  I  and  II;  G.  Friedlander,  Jewish  Sources  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  Kohler :  “  D.  Naechstenliebe  im  Judenth.,”  Judaica , 
Berlin,  1912. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


439 


austere  adherence  to  the  letter  with  no  regard  to  the  inner 
life,  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  the  actual  teachings  of  the 
Nazarene  were  animated  by  love  and  sympathy,  emanating 
from  the  ethical  spirit  of  the  Law.  Yet  the  very  words  of 
Jesus  in  this  same  sermon  disavow  every  hint  of  antinomian- 
ism :  “Verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one 
jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  Law  till  all  be 
fulfilled. ”  1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  very  teachings  of  love 
and  inwardness  which  are  embodied  in  both  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  and  the  epistles  of  Paul  were  largely  adopted 
from  the  Pharisean  schools  and  Hasidean  works  as  well  as 
from  the  Alexandrian  Propaganda  literature  and  the  Pros¬ 
elyte  Manuals  preserved  by  the  Church. 

In  fact,  part  of  this  criticism  was  voiced  by  the  Pharisees, 
as  they  attacked  the  Sadducean  insistence  upon  the  letter 
of  the  Law.  The  Pharisean  spirit  of  progress  applied  new 
methods  of  interpretation  to  the  Mosaic  Code  and  especially 
to  the  Decalogue,  deriving  from  them  a  higher  conception  of 
God  and  godliness,  breaking  the  fetters  of  the  letter,  and 
working  mainly  for  the  holiness  of  the  inner  life  and  the  en¬ 
deavor  to  spread  happiness  about.2  Taking  no  heed  of  the 
actual  achievements  of  the  Synagogue,  the  Paulinian  Church 
rose  triumphantly  to  power  after  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish 
State  and  impregnated  the  Christian  world  with  hostility  to 
Judaism  and  the  Jew,  which  lasts  to  this  very  day,  thus  turn¬ 
ing  the  gospel  of  love  into  a  source  of  religious  hatred. 

io.  Nevertheless  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Paulinian  Chris¬ 
tianity,  while  growing  into  a  world-conquering  Church,  achieved 
the  dissemination  of  the  Sinaitic  doctrines  as  neither  Judaism 
nor  the  Judaeo-Christian  sect  could  ever  have  done.  The 

1  Matt.  V,  17-18. 

2  See  J.  E.,  and  Enc.  Rel.  and  Ethics,  art.  Pharisees ;  Lauterbach,  “  The 
Sad.  and  Phar.,”  in  Stud,  in  Jew.  Lit.,  Berlin,  1913;  Herford :  Pharisaism; 
Wuensche :  Neue  Beitr.  z.  Erlduterung  d.  Evangelien. 


440 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


missionary  zeal  of  the  apostle  to  the  heathen  caused  a  fer¬ 
mentation  and  dissolution  in  the  entire  neo- Jewish  world, 
which  will  not  end  until  all  pagan  elements  are  eliminated. 
Eventually  the  whole  of  civilization  will  accept,  through  a 
purified  Christianity,  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  only  Ruler 
of  the  world,  and  the  brotherhood  of  all  men  as  His  children. 
Then,  in  place  of  an  unsound  overemphasis  on  the  principle  of 
love,  justice  will  be  the  foundation  of  society ;  in  place  of  a 
pessimistic  other-worldliness,  the  optimistic  hope  for  a  king¬ 
dom  of  God  on  earth  will  constitute  the  spiritual  and  ethical 
ideal  of  humanity.  We  must  not  be  blind  to  the  fact  that 
only  her  alliance  with  Rome,  her  holding  in  one  hand  the 
sword  of  Esau  and  in  the  other  the  Scriptures  of  the  house 
of  Jacob,  made  the  Church  able  to  train  the  crude  heathen 
nations  for  a  life  of  duty  and  love,  for  the  willing  subordina¬ 
tion  to  a  higher  power,  and  caused  them  to  banish  vice  and 
cruelty  from  their  deep  hold  on  social  and  domestic  life. 
Only  the  powerful  Church  was  able  to  develop  the  ancient 
Jewish  institutions  of  charity  and  redeeming  love  into  mag¬ 
nificent  systems  of  beneficence,  which  have  led  civilization 
forward  toward  ideals  which  it  will  take  centuries  to  realize. 

Nor  must  we  overlook  the  mission  of  the  Church  in  the 
realm  of  art,  a  mission  which  Judaism  could  never  have 
undertaken.  The  stern  conception  of  a  spiritual  God  who 
tolerated  no  visible  representation  of  His  being  made  impos¬ 
sible  the  development  of  plastic  art  among  the  Jews.  The 
semi-pagan  image  worship  of  the  Christian  Church,  the  rep¬ 
resentation  of  God  and  the  saints  in  pictorial  form,  favored 
ecclesiastical  art,  until  it  broadened  in  the  Renaissance  into 
the  various  arts  of  modern  times.  Similarly,  the  predominance 
of  mysticism  over  reason,  of  the  emotions  over  the  intellect 
in  the  Church,  gave  rise  to  its  wonderful  creation  of  music, 
endowing  the  soul  with  new  powers  to  soar  aloft  to  undreamed¬ 
of  heights  of  emotion,  to  be  carried  along  as  upon  Seraph’s 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


441 


wings  to  realms  where  human  language  falters  and  grows 
faint.  Beyond  dispute  Christianity  deserves  great  credit  for 
having  among  all  religions  opened  wide  the  flood  gates  of  the 
soul  by  cultivating  the  emotions  through  works  of  art  and 
the  development  of  music,  thereby  enriching  human  life  in 
all  directions. 

11.  Islam,  the  other  daughter  of  Judaism,  for  its  part, 
fostered  the  intellectual  side  of  humanity,  so  contemptu¬ 
ously  neglected  by  the  Church.  The  cultivation  of  philosophy 
and  science  was  the  historical  task  assigned  to  the  Moham¬ 
medan  religion.  From  the  sources  of  information  we  have 
about  the  life  and  revelation  of  Mohammed,  we  learn  that 
the  origin  of  the  belief  in  Allah,  the  God  of  Abraham,  goes 
back  to  an  earlier  period  when  Jewish  tribes  settled  in  south 
Arabia.  Among  these  Jews  were  traders,  goldsmiths,  famous 
warriors,  and  knights  endowed  with  the  gift  of  song,  who  dis¬ 
seminated  Jewish  legends  concerning  Biblical  heroes.1  Amid 
hallucinations  and  mighty  emotional  outbursts  this  belief  in 
Allah  took  root  in  the  fiery  soul  of  Mohammed,  who  thus 
received  sublime  conceptions  of  the  one  God  and  His  creation, 
and  of  the  world’s  Judge  and  His  future  Day  of  Judgment. 
The  sight  of  idolatry,  cruelty,  and  vice  among  his  countrymen 
filled  him  with  boundless  indignation,  so  that  he  began  his 
career  as  a  God-sent  preacher  of  repentance,  modeling  his 
life  after  the  great  prophets  of  yore.  With  drastic  threats  of 
the  last  Judgment  he  tried  to  force  the  idolaters  to  return  to 
Allah  in  true  repentance.  But  few  of  his  hearers  believed  in 
his  prophetic  mission,  and  the  leading  men  of  the  city  of 
Mecca,  who  derived  a  large  income  from  the  heathen  sanc¬ 
tuary  there,  opposed  him  with  fierce  and  violent  measures. 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Mohammed ;  Islam ;  and  the  works  of  Muir,  W.  Robertson 
Smith,  Hirschfeld ;  of  Geiger,  Weil,  Sprenger,  von  Kremer,  Noeldeke,  Grimme, 
Dozy,  and  above  all  Goldziher,  on  the  Koran,  Mohammed  and  Islam;  also 
Enc.  Religion  and  Ethics,  VIII,  871-907. 


442 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Thus  he  was  forced  to  flee  to  the  Jewish  colony  of  Yathrib, 
afterwards  called  Medina,  “the  city”  of  the  prophet.  He 
hoped  for  recognition  there,  especially  after  he  had  made 
certain  concessions,  such  as  turning  the  face  toward  Jeru¬ 
salem  in  prayer,  and  keeping  the  Day  of  Atonement  on  the 
tenth  of  Tishri.  In  addition,  he  emphasized  the  unity  of 
God  in  the  strongest  possible  manner,  and  opposed  every 
encroachment  upon  it  by  the  belief  in  additional  powers  or 
persons,  attacking  the  Christians  on  the  one  hand  and  his 
Arabian  countrymen  on  the  other,  with  the  sarcastic  phrase : 
“Verily,  God  has  neither  a  son,  nor  has  He  any  daughter.” 
In  spite  of  all  these  facts,  the  Jews  could  not  be  brought  to 
recognize  the  uneducated  son  of  the  desert  as  a  prophet.  There¬ 
fore  his  proffered  friendship  was  turned  to  deadly  hatred  and 
passionate  revenge.  His  whole  nature  underwent  a  great 
change;  his  former  enthusiasm  and  prophetic  zeal  were  re¬ 
placed  by  calculation  and  worldly  desire,  so  that  the  preacher 
of  repentance  of  Mecca  became  at  the  last  a  lover  of  blood¬ 
shed,  robbery  and  lust.  Instead  of  Jerusalem  he  chose  Mecca 
with  its  heathen  traditions  as  the  center  of  his  religious  sys¬ 
tem  and  aimed  chiefly  to  win  the  Arabian  tribes  for  his  divine 
revelation. 

Thus  the  entire  Arabian  nation,  full  of  youthful  energy, 
burning  with  the  impulse  of  great  deeds,  bore  the  faith  of  the 
One  God  to  the  world  by  the  sword.  Like  Israel  of  old,  it 
stepped  forth  from  the  desert  with  a  divine  revelation  con¬ 
tained  in  a  holy  book.  It  conquered  first  the  Christian  lands 
of  the  East,  which  under  the  Trinitarian  dogma  had  lapsed 
from  pure  monotheism,  then  the  northern  coast  of  Africa,  and 
it  finally  unfurled  the  green  flag  of  Islam  over  the  lands  of 
the  West  to  free  them  from  the  fanatical  Church. v  Henceforth 
war  was  waged  for  centuries  between  the  One  God  of  Abra¬ 
ham  and  the  triune  God  of  the  Church  in  both  Spain  and 
Palestine.  Then  might  the  genius  of  history  ask:  “Watch- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


443 


man,  what  of  the  night?  Watchman,  what  of  the  night?” 
And  again  the  words  are  heard,  as  from  on  high  :  “The  morn¬ 
ing  cometh,  and  also  the  night.”  The  final  victory  is  yet  to 
come. 

12.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Mohammedan  monotheism 
has  a  certain  harshness  and  bluntness.  It  cannot  win  the 
heart  by  the  mildness  of  heaven  or  the  recognition  of  man’s 
individuality.  Islam ,  as  the  name  denotes,  demands  blind 
submission  to  the  will  of  God,  and  it  has  led  to  a  fatalism 
which  paralyzes  the  sense .  of  freedom,  and  to  a  fanaticism 
which  treats  every  other  faith  with  contempt.  Islam  has 
remained  a  national  religion,  which  has  never  attained  the 
outlook  upon  the  whole  of  humanity,  so  characteristic  of  the 
prophets  of  Israel.  Its  view  of  the  hereafter  is  crude  and 
sensuous,  while  its  picture  of  the  Day  of  Judgment  bears  no 
trace  of  the  divine  mercy.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  recog¬ 
nize  that  the  reverence  of  the  Koran  lent  the  “Men  of  the 
Book,”  the  representatives  of  culture,  greater  dignity,  and 
provided  a  mighty  incentive  to  study  and  inquiry.  Damas¬ 
cus  and  Bagdad  became  under  the  Caliphs  centers  of  learning, 
of  philosophical  study  and  scientific  investigation,  uniting 
Nestorian,  Jew,  and  Mohammedan  in  the  great  efforts  towards 
general  enlightenment.  The  consequence  was  that  Greek 
science  and  philosophy,  banished  by  the  Church,  were  revived 
by  the  Mohammedan  rulers  and  again  cultivated,  so  that 
Judaism  also  felt  their  fructifying  power.  Our  modern  Chris¬ 
tian  civilization,  so-called  by  Christian  historians,  is  largely 
the  fruit  of  the  rich  intellectual  seeds  sown  by  Mohammedans 
and  Jews,  after  the  works  of  ancient  Greeks  had  been  trans¬ 
lated  into  Syrian,  Arabic,  and  Hebrew  by  a  group  of  Syrian 
Unitarians  (the  Nestorians)  assisted  by  Jewish  scholars.1 

1  See  Draper,  Conflict  of  Religion  with  Science;  Intellectual  Development 
of  Europe;  Lecky,  History  of  Rationalism;  Andrew  D.  White:  Warfare  be¬ 
tween  Religion  and  Science;  Krauskopf  :  Jews  and  Moors  in  Spain. 


444 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


As  for  instance  the  Hohenstaufen  Emperor  Frederick  II,  the 
friend  of  Jewish  and  other  liberal  thinkers,  was  much  more  of 
an  investigator  than  a  believer,  so  did  the  spirit  of  investigation 
derived  from  Islam  and  Judaism  pervade  Christendom,  and 
create  the  great  intellectual  movements  which  finally  under¬ 
mined  its  creeds  and  shattered  its  solidarity  into  contending 
sects.  Return  to  the  Bible  and  the  God  of  the  Bible,  to  a 
Sabbath  devoted  to  instruction  in  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
the  recognition  of  human  freedom  and  the  sanctity  of  the 
family  —  this  was  the  watchword  of  the  Reformation.  Return 
to  the  right  of  free  thought  and  free  conscience,  which  im¬ 
plies  the  pure  worship  of  God  as  He  lives  in  the  heart,  is 
now  the  watchword  of  those  who  endeavor  to  reform  the 
Protestant  Church.  That  is,  both  are  moved  by  a  desire 
to  return  to  the  principles  and  ideals  set  forth  by  Israel’s 
prophets  of  old. 

13.  Both  the  Church,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  and  the 
Mosque  have  a  Providential  mission  which  they  must  fulfill 
through  the  ages  of  history,  until  all  the  heathen  have  learned 
to  worship  God  as  the  spirit  of  holiness  in  man,  instead  of 
seeking  Him  in  the  blind  forces  of  nature  or  of  destiny.  True, 
the  Mohammedan  religion  is  predisposed  to  sensuality  and 
still  awaits  the  process  of  purification  to  become  completely 
spiritualized ;  yet  indications  are  not  lacking  that  a  process  of 
reform  is  approaching  to  bring  out  the  gold  of  pure  mono¬ 
theism  and  cast  off  the  dross  of  Oriental  voluptuousness  and 
superstition.  We  must  remember  that  during  the  dark  night 
of  medieval  ignorance  and  barbarism  Islam  carried  through¬ 
out  all  lands  the  torch  of  philosophy  and  scientific  investiga¬ 
tion  and  of  the  pure  faith  in  God.  Even  to-day  it  accomplishes 
far  more  for  the  advancement  of  life  in  the  east  of  Asia  and 
the  south  of  Africa  than  did  the  Russian  Church  with  her 
gross  superstition  and  idolatry,  or  even  some  branches  of 
Protestantism,  with  their  deification  of  a  human  being. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM 


445 


Between  Church  and  Mosque,  hated  and  despised  by  both, 
stood  and  still  stands  the  Synagogue,  proudly  conscious  of  its 
divine  mission.  It  feels  itself  the  banner-bearer  of  a  truth 
which  brooks  no  compromise,  of  a  justice  which  insists  on 
the  rights  of  all  men.  It  offers  the  world  a  religion  of  peace 
and  love,  admitting  no  division  or  discord  among  mankind, 
waiting  for  the  day  when  the  God  of  Sinai  shall  rear  high  His 
throne  in  the  hearts  of  all  men  and  nations.  To-day  the 
Synagogue,  rejuvenated  by  the  influences  of  modern  culture, 
looks  with  ever  greater  confidence  to  a  speedy  realization  of 
its  Messianic  hope  for  all  humanity. 

Hitherto  Judaism  was  restrained  by  its  two  daughter- 
religions  from  pursuing  its  former  missionary  activity.  It 
was  forced  to  employ  all  its  energy  in  the  single  effort  for  self- 
preservation.  But  in  the  striking  contrasts  of  our  age,  when 
the  enlightened  spirit  of  humanity  struggles  so  bitterly  with 
the  forces  of  barbarism  and  brutality,  we  may  well  see  the 
approaching  dawn  of  a  new  era.  That  glorious  day,  we  feel, 
will  witness  the  ultimate  triumph  of  justice  and  truth,  and 
out  of  the  day  which  is  “ neither  day  nor  night”  will  bring 
forth  the  time  when  “the  Lord  shall  be  King  over  all  the 
earth,  the  Lord  shall  be  One  and  His  name  One.”  1  This 
will  be  an  auspicious  time  for  Israel  to  arise  with  renewed 
prophetic  vigor  as  the  bearer  of  a  world-uniting  faith,  as  the 
triumphant  Messiah  of  the  nations.  Through  Israel  the 
monotheistic  faiths  of  the  world  may  find  a  union  so  that,  in 
fulfillment  of  the  ancient  prophecy,2  its  Sabbath  may  be  a 
world-Sabbath  and  its  Atonement  Day  a  feast  of  at-one-ment 
and  reconciliation  for  all  mankind.  “He  that  believe th  shall 
not  make  haste.”  3 

Yet  just  because  of  this  universalistic  Messianic  hope  of 
Judaism  it  is  still  imperative,  as  it  has  been  throughout  the 
past,  that  the  Jewish  people  must  continue  its  separateness 
1  Zech.  XIV,  6-9.  2  Isa.  LXVI,  20.  3  Isa.  XXVIII,  16. 


446 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


as  “  a  Kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation,”  and  for  the  sake 
of  its  world-mission  avoid  intermarrying  with  members  of 
other  sects,  unless  they  espouse  the  Jewish  faith.1  Israel’s 
particularism,  says  Professor  Lazarus,2  has  its  universalism 
as  motive  and  aim. 

1Ex.  XIX,  6;  Num.  XXIII,  9;  Deut.  VII,  2-6;  Isa.  LXI,  6;  9;  Maim. 
H.  Issure  Biah  XII,  1 ;  Sh.  A.  Eben  ha  Ezer  XVI,  1 ;  Einhorn  in  Jewish  Times 
1876,  against  Sam.  Hirsch;  Samuel  Schulman  in  Y.  B.  C.  C.  A.  R.  1909,  comp. 
D.  Philipson,  1.  c.  Index  s.  v.  Intermarriage;  J.  E.,  art.  Intermarriage;  also 
Mielziner :  The  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  p.  45-54,  where  the  opinions 
of  L.  Philippson,  Geiger,  Aub,  Einhorn  and  I.  M.  Wise  are  quoted. 

2  Lazarus,  1.  c.,  §  159. 


CHAPTER  LVIII 


The  Synagogue  and  its  Institutions 

1.  Every  religion,  as  soon  as  it  attains  any  degree  of  self- 
consciousness,  aims  to  present  a  convincing  form  of  truth  to 
the  individual  and  to  win  adherents  in  increasing  numbers. 
Nevertheless  the  maintenance  of  a  religion  does  not  rest  upon 
its  doctrines,  which  must  differ  according  to  the  intellec¬ 
tual  capacity  of  the  people  and  the  prevailing  views  of  each 
age.  Its  stability  is  based  upon  those  forms  and  institutions 
which  lend  it  a  peculiar  character,  and  which  express,  sym¬ 
bolically  or  otherwise,  definite  ideas,  religious,  ethical,  and 
historical.  For  this  reason  many  exponents  of  Judaism 
would  entirely  discard  the  idea  of  a  systematic  theology,  and 
insist  on  the  observance  of  the  ceremonial  laws  as  the  one 
essential.  In  following  tradition  in  this  manner,  they  forget 
that  the  forms  of  religious  practice  have  undergone  many 
changes  in  the  course  of  time.  In  fact,  the  vitality  of  Judaism 
lies  in  its  unique  capacity  for  development.  Its  ever  youthful 
mind  has  constantly  created  new  forms  to  express  the  ideas 
of  the  time,  or  has  invested  old  ones  with  new  meanings.1 

2.  The  greatest  and,  indeed,  the  unique  creation  of  Judaism 
is  the  Synagogue,  which  started  it  on  its  world-mission  and 
made  the  Torah  the  common  property  of  the  entire  people. 
Devised  in  the  Exile  as  a  substitute  for  the  Temple,  it  soon 
eclipsed  it  as  a  religious  force  and  a  rallying  point  for  the 
whole  people,  appealing  through  the  prayers  and  Scriptural 

1  See  Kohler :  “Origin  a.  Function  of  Ceremonies  in  Judaism,”  in  Y.  B.  C.  C. 
of  Am.  R.,  1907.  Rosenau :  Jewish  Ceremonies ,  Institutions  a.  Customs ,  1912. 

447 


448 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


lessons  to  the  congregation  as  a  whole.  The  Synagogue  was 
limited  to  no  one  locality,  like  the  Temple,  but  raised  its 
banner  wherever  Jews  settled  throughout  the  globe.  It  was 
thus  able  to  spread  the  truths  of  Judaism  to  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  earth,  and  to  invest  the  Sabbath  and  festivals 
with  deeper  meaning  by  utilizing  them  for  the  instruction  and 
elevation  of  the  people.  What  did  it  matter,  if  the  Temple 
fell  a  prey  to  the  flame  for  a  second  time,  or  if  the  whole  sacri¬ 
ficial  cult  of  the  priesthood  with  all  its  pomp  were  to  cease 
forever?  The  soul  of  Judaism  lived  indestructibly  in  the 
house  of  prayer  and  learning.  In  the  Synagogue  was  fanned 
the  holy  flame  which  kindled  the  heart  with  love  of  God 
and  fellow-men;  here  were  offered  sacrifices  more  pleasing 
to  God  than  the  blood  and  fat  of  beasts,  sacrifices  of  love 
and  charity.1 

3.  The  Synagogue  has  its  peculiar  institutions  and  cere¬ 
monies,  but  no  sacraments  like  those  of  the  Church.  Its 
institutions,  such  as  the  festivals,  aim  to  preserve  the  his¬ 
toric  memory  of  the  people;  its  ceremonies,  called  “ signs” 
or  “  testimonies  ”  in  the  Scripture,  are  to  sanctify  the  life  of 
the  nation,  the  family,  or  the  individual.  Neither  possesses 
a  sacramental  power,  as  does  baptism  or  communion  in  the 
Church,  in  giving  salvation,  or  imparting  something  of  the 
nature  of  the  Deity,  or  making  one  a  member  of  the  religious 
community.  The  Jew  is  a  member  of  the  Jewish  community 
by  his  birth,  which  imposes  upon  him  the  obligations  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  Israel  at  Mount  Sinai.  Juda¬ 
ism  is  a  religious  heritage  intrusted  to  a  nation  of  priests,  and 
is  not  acquired  by  any  rite  of  consecration  or  confession  of 
faith.  Such  a  form  of  consecration  and  confession  is  required 
only  in  the  case  of  proselytes.2 

1  See  art.  Synagogue,  in  various  encyclopedias;  Enelow:  The  Synagogue  in 
Modern  Life;  Schuerer,  1.  c.,  II,  429;  Bousset,  1.  c.,  197  ff. 

2  See  Chapter  LVI  above ;  J.  E.,  art.  Proselyte. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  449 


It  is  superfluous  to  state  that  Confirmation  does  not  bestow 
the  character  of  Jew  upon  the  young,  any  more  than  the 
former  rite  of  Bar  Mizwah  did  upon  the  young  Israelite  who 
was  called  up  to  the  reading  from  the  Law  in  his  thirteenth 
year  as  a  form  of  initiation  into  Jewish  life.1 

4.  The  rite  of  circumcision  is  enjoined  upon  the  father  in 
the  Mosaic  Code  as  a  “sign”  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
to  be  performed  on  every  son  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth.2 
Therefore  it  is  held  in  high  esteem,  and  the  father  terms  the 
act  in  his  benediction  “admission  into  the  covenant  of  Abra¬ 
ham”;3  but  in  spite  of  this  it  is  not  a  sacrament  and  does 
not  determine  membership  in  the  Jewish  community.  The 
operation  was  not  to  be  performed  by  a  person  of  sacred  call¬ 
ing  such  as  priest  or  rabbi,  but  in  ancient  Biblical  times  was 
performed  by  women,4  and  in  the  Talmudic  period  by  the 
surgeon.5  In  fact,  if  no  Jewish  surgeon  was  at  hand,  some 
Talmudic  authorities  held  that  a  non- Jewish  surgeon  could 
perform  it.  Moreover,  where  hygienic  reasons  forced  the 
omission  of  the  rite,  the  man  was  still  a  Jew.6  The  rite  itself 
underwent  a  change ;  it  was  performed  with  stone  knives 
in  Biblical  times,  just  as  in  Egypt  and  even  to-day  in  Arabia 
and  Syria.7  It  became  a  mark  of  distinction  for  the  people 
during  the  Exile.8  But  the  act  was  invested  with  special 
religious  sanctity  during  the  Syrian  persecution,  when  many 
Jewish  youths  “violated  the  covenant”  in  order  to  appear 
uncircumcised  when  they  appeared  in  the  arena  with  the 

1  See  J.  E.,  art.  Bar  Mizwah  and  Confirmation. 

2  Gen.  XVII,  10-14.  3  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  p.  305. 

4  Ex.  IV,  25  ;  see  commentaries;  Ebers :  ALgypten,  B.  M.  I,  183. 

6  Josephus:  Ant.  XX,  2,  4;  Shab.  130  b,  133  b,  156  a;  Men.  42  a;  Ab.  Z. 

26  b;  comp.  Gen.  R.  XLVI,  9.  6  Ab.  Z.  27  a. 

7  Ex.  IV,  25;  Josh.  V,  2;  comp.  Tylor:  Early  History  of  Mankind,  217- 
222;  J.  E.  and  Encyc.  of  Rel.  and  Ethics,  art.  Circumcision;  Ploss:  Knaben- 
beschneidung,  p.  n. 

8  Gen.  XVII,  10-14;  comp.  Deut.  X,  16;  Jer.  IX,  25;  Claude  Montefiore: 
Hibbert  Lectures,  229,  337. 


450 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


heathen.1  At  this  time  new  methods  were  introduced  to  guard 
the  “seal”  of  the  covenant,2  while  pious  mothers  faced  martyr¬ 
dom  willingly  to  preserve  the  rite  of  Abraham  among  their 
children.  Later  on  the  rabbis  even  declared  circumcision 
to  be  a  safeguard  against  the  pit  of  Gehenna 3  and  made 
Elijah  the  guardian  of  the  covenant.4  The  rite  may  be 
traced  back  to  primitive  life,  when  the  operation  was 
usually  performed  at  the  time  of  puberty  and  as  a  pre¬ 
liminary  to  marriage,5  but  in  Jewish  life  it  assumed  a  re¬ 
ligious  meaning  and  became  endeared  to  the  people  as  the 
consecration  of  the  child  as  the  future  head  of  a  family. 
The  idea  underlying  the  institution  (as  Zunz  correctly  calls 
it)  6  is  the  sanctification  of  the  Jewish  household  as  repre¬ 
sented  by  its  male  members.  The  member  of  a  people 
that  is  to  be  holy  unto  God  must  bear  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  on  his  flesh;  as  a  potential  father  of  another 
generation,  the  sign  he  bore  had  a  deeper  meaning  for  the 
future  of  the  people.7  The  rationalistic  view  that  the  Mosaic 
law  is  merely  hygienic,  although  found  as  early  as  Philo,  is 
quite  erroneous.8 

5.  The  same  rationalist  view 9  is  often  applied  to  the 

1I  Macc.  I,  15,  48,  60;  Josephus:  Ant.  XII,  5,  1;  Aboth  III,  11;  Tos. 
Shab.  XV,  9 ;  Yer.  Peah  I,  16  b ;  Gen.  R.  XLVI,  9 ;  Jubil.  XV,  26  f. 

2  Yer.  Shab.  XIX,  6;  Yeb.  71  b. 

3  Gen.  R.  XLVIII,  7;  Tanh.  Lek  Leka,  ed.  Buber,  27;  Singer’s  Prayerb., 
304,  after  Tos.  Ber.  VI,  12,  13;  Shab.  137  b. 

4  P.  d.  R.  El.  XIX. 

5  Ploss  :  Geschicht.  u.  Ethnol.  ue.  Knabenbeschneidung,  1844;  Encyc.  Rel.  and 
Ethics,  art.  Circumcision. 

8 Zunz:  Ges.  Schr.  II,  197;  comp.  Rabbin  Gutachten  ue.  d.  Beschneidung , 
1844;  Frankel:  Zeitsch.,  1844,  P-  66-67. 

7  See  J.  E.,  art.  Circumcision;  Sam.  Cohn:  Gesch.  d.  Beschneidung  b.  d. 
Juden  (Hebrew),  Cracaw,  1903,  for  the  extensive  literature. 

8  Philo  II,  210;  Josephus:  Con.  Apion.  II,  13;  Saadia:  Emunoth,  III,  10; 
Maimonides :  Moreh,  III,  49;  Michaelis:  Mosaisches  Recht,  IV,  184-186. 

9  Maimonides,  1.  c.,  Ill,  48 ;  Samuel  ben  Meir  to  Lev.  XI,  3 ;  Michaelis, 
1.  c.,  IV,  202. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS 


dietary  laws  of  the  Mosaic  Code,  but  without  any  justifica¬ 
tion  from  the  Biblical  point  of  view.  These  laws  prohibit 
as  unclean  various  species  of  animals,  or  such  as  have  fallen 
dead  or  as  the  prey  of  wild  beasts,  or  certain  portions  like  blood 
and  suet.1  The  Holiness  Code  states  its  reason  for  these 
prohibitions  very  emphatically:  “I  am  the  Lord  your  God, 
who  have  set  you  apart  from  the  peoples.  Ye  shall  therefore 
separate  between  the  clean  beast  and  the  unclean,  and  be¬ 
tween  the  unclean  fowl  and  the  clean ;  and  ye  shall  not  make 
your  souls  detestable  by  beast,  or  by  fowl,  or  by  any  thing 
wherewith  the  ground  teemeth,  which  I  have  set  apart  for 
you  to  hold  unclean.  And  ye  shall  be  holy  unto  Me;  for  I 
the  Lord  your  God  am  holy,  and  have  set  you  apart  from  the 
peoples,  that  ye  should  be  Mine.” 2  The  Deuteronomic 
Code  gives  the  same  reason  for  the  prohibition  of  the  unclean 
beasts :  “For  thou  art  a  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God.” 
It  seems  that  these  prohibitions  of  “unclean”  foods  were 
intended  originally  for  the  priesthood  and  other  holy  men, 
as  appears  in  Ezekiel  and  elsewhere.3  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  same  class  of  animals  from  which  the  Israelites  were  com¬ 
manded  to  abstain  were  also  forbidden  to  the  priests  or  saints  of 
India,  Persia,  Mesopotamia,  and  partly  of  Egypt.4  The 
natural  conclusion  is  that  the  Mosaic  law  intended  these 
rules  as  a  practical  expression  of  its  general  principle  that 

1  Lev.  XI;  Deut.  XIV,  3-21;  Ex.  XXII,  30;  Lev.  VII,  23;  XVII,  9  f. ; 
see  Kalisch’s  :  commentary  to  Lev.  vol.  II,  2-189;  J-  E.,  art.  Dietary  Laws. 

2  Lev.  XX,  24-26,  which  belongs  to  Lev.  XI,  1-47;  comp.  Deut.  XIV, 
3-21. 

3  See  Ezek.  XLIV,  31;  IV,  14;  Jud.  XIII,  7,  14.  The  law  in  Ex.  XXII, 
30,  “Ye  shall  be  holy  men  unto  Me,  therefore  ye  shall  not  eat  any  flesh  that  is 
torn  of  beasts  in  the  field,”  seems  to  have  been  originally  only  for  priests  and 
other  holy  men. 

4  See  Laws  of  Mann,  V,  7;  11-20  in  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  XXV,  171  f. ; 
comp.  II,  64;  XIV,  38-48;  74;  184;  Bundahish,  XIV ;  S.  B.  E.  V,  47;  Chwol- 
son  :  Die  Szabier,  II,  7 ;  102 ;  Porphyrius  :  De  Abstinentia,  IV,  7 ;  Sommer,  Bibl. 
Abh.  271-322;  J.  E.,  1.  c.,  599. 


452 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Israel  was  to  be  “a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation.”  1 
In  other  words,  Israel  was  to  fill  the  usual  place  of  the  priest 
among  the  nations  of  the  ancient  world,  a  priest-people  ob¬ 
serving  the  priestly  laws  of  sanctification.  Whatever  the 
origin  of  these  customs  may  have  been,  whether  they  were 
tabu  laws  in  connection  with  totemism  or  some  other  primitive 
view,  the  Priestly  Code  itself  admits  their  lack  of  an  Israelitish 
origin  by  recognizing  that  they  were  known  to  Noah.2  They 
were  simply  adopted  by  the  law-giver  of  Israel  to  make  the 
i  whole  people  feel  their  priestly  calling. 

In  later  times  the  dietary  laws,  especially  abstinence  from 
the  flesh  of  swine,  became  a  mark  of  distinction  which  sepa¬ 
rated  the  Jew  from  his  heathen  surroundings ;  and  they  be¬ 
came  a  symbol  of  Jewish  loyalty  in  the  Syrian  persecutions 
when  pious  Jews  faced  martyrdom  for  them  as  willingly  as 
for  the  refusal  to  adore  the  Syrian  idols.3  In  fact,  Pharisaism 
adopted  the  principle  of  separation  from  the  heathen  in  every 
matter  pertaining  to  diet,  and  this  spirit  of  separatism  was 
strengthened  by  the  scorn  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  and 
afterward  by  the  antinomian  spirit  of  Christianity.  While 
Hellenistic  writers,  eager  to  find  a  universal  meaning  in  these 
laws,  assigned  certain  physical  or  psychic  reasons  for  them,4 
the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud  insisted  that  they  were  given  solely 
for  the  moral  purification  of  Israel.  Thus  they  were  to  be 
observed  as  tests  of  Israel’s  submission  to  the  divine  will  and 
not  because  of  personal  distaste.  In  their  own  words,  “We 
must  overcome  all  desire  for  the  sake  of  our  Father  in  heaven  ”  ; 
and  “Only  to  those  who  wrestle  with  temptation  does  the 
kingdom  of  God  come.”  5  In  the  course  of  time  these  pro¬ 
hibitions  were  steadily  extended,  until  they  encircled  the 
whole  life  of  the  Jew,  forming  an  insurmountable  wall  which 
secluded  him  from  his  non-Jewish  environment.  Finally, 

1  Ex.  XIX,  6.  2  Gen.  VII,  2,  8.  3 II  Macc.  VI,  18 ;  VII,  41. 

4  Aristeas,  144-170.  5  Sifra  to  Lev.  XX,  26;  Tanh.  to  Lev.  XI,  2. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  453 

separation  from  the  world  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  end  in 
itself.1 

Now,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  these  laws  actually  disci¬ 
plined  the  medieval  Jew,  so  that  during  centuries  of  wild 
dissipation  he  practiced  sobriety  and  moderation;  as  Mai- 
monides  says,2  they  served  as  lessons  in  self-mastery,  in  curb¬ 
ing  carnal  desire,  and  keeping  him  clean  in  soul  as  well  as 
body.  The  question  remains  whether  they  still  fulfill  their 
real  object  of  consecrating  Israel  to  its  priestly  mission  among 
the  nations.  Certainly  the  priestly  character  of  these 
laws  is  no  longer  understood,  and  the  great  majority  of  the 
Jewish  people  who  live  among  the  various  nations  have 
long  discarded  them.  Orthodox  Judaism,  which  follows 
tradition  without  inquiring  into  the  purpose  of  the  laws, 
is  entirely  consistent  in  maintaining  the  importance  of 
every  item  of  the  traditional  Jewish  life.  Reform  Judaism 
has  a  different  view,  as  it  sees  in  the  humanitarianism  of 
the  present  a  mode  of  realizing  the  Messianic  hope  of  Israel. 
Therefore  it  cannot  afford  to  encourage  the  separation  of 
the  Jew  from  his  environment  in  any  way  except  through 
the  maintenance  of  his  religion,  and  cannot  encourage  the 
dietary  laws  as  a  means  of  separatism.  Its  great  problem 
is  to  find  other  methods  to  inculcate  the  spirit  of  holiness 
in  the  modern  Jew,  to  render  him  conscious  of  his  priestly 
mission,  while  he  lives  in  unison  and  fellowship  with  all  his 
fellow-citizens.3 

6.  The  tendency  to  distinguish  the  Jew  from  his  non- Jew¬ 
ish  neighbor  in  the  course  of  time  found  expression  in  the 
laws  for  wearing  phylacteries  ( tefillin )  on  his  forehead  and 
arm,  a  special  sign  on  the  doorpost  of  his  house  ( mezuzzah ) 

1  Shab.  17  b;  Ab.  Z.  36  b,  38  a,  8  a;  Sanh.  104  a;  P.  d.  R.  El.  XXIX. 

2Moreh,  III,  25;  see  also  Morris  Joseph,  1.  c.,  180-189. 

3  For  the  orthodox  view,  see  S.  R.  Hirsch :  Horeb,  Chap.  LXVIII ;  M. 
Friedlander:  The  Jewish  Religion,  237;  for  the  reform,  Einhorn:  Sinai ,  1859; 
Kohler:  Jewish  Times,  1872;  Geiger:  Ges.  Schr.  I,  253  f. 


454 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


and  fringes  ( zizith )  on  the  four  corners  of  his  shawl  ( tallith ).1 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  original  Biblical  passages  had  no  such 
meaning,  but  acquired  it  through  rabbinical  interpretation. 
The  Mosaic  law  said :  “And  thou  shalt  bind  them  for  a  sign 
upon  thy  hand,  and  they  shall  be  for  frontlets  between  thine 
eyes.  And  thou  shalt  write  them  upon  the  doorposts  of  thy 
house  and  upon  thy  gates.”  This  refers  clearly  to  the  words 
of  God,  admonishing  the  people  to  keep  them  in  mind,  as 
the  preceding  verse  indicates.  Likewise,  the  precept  regard¬ 
ing  the  fringes  upon  the  four-cornered  garment  emphasizes 
rather  the  blue  thread  in  the  fringes,  which  is  to  help  the  people 
remember  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  that  they  may 
not  go  astray,  “following  after  the  promptings  of  their  own 
hearts  and  eyes.”  As  the  name  phylacteries  shows,  these 
were  originally  talismans  or  amulets.  True,  the  law  as  stated 
in  Deuteronomy  may  be  taken  symbolically ; 2  but  the 
corresponding  passage  in  Exodus,  which  is  traditionally  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  phylacteries,  indicates  its  origin  by  its  close  re¬ 
lation  to  the  Passover  sacrifice.  The  blood  of  this  was,  no 
doubt,  put  originally  on  the  arm  and  forehead,3  which  is 
still  done  by  the  Samaritans 4  and  has  striking  parallels  in  the 
practice  of  the  Fellahin  in  Palestine  and  Syria.5  Originally 
the  sacrificial  blood  was  supposed  to  ward  off  evil  spirits  from 
men,  beasts  and  houses  or  tents,  and  gradually  this  pagan 
custom  was  transformed  into  a  religious  precept  to  consecrate 
the  body,  life,  and  home  of  the  Jew.  In  more  ancient  times  the 
phylacteries  were  worn  by  pious  men  and  women  all  day  and 
not  merely  during  the  time  of  prayer,  and  seem  to  have  served 

1  Deut.  VI,  8-9 ;  XI,  18-20 ;  Num.  XV,  38-39. 

2  Comp.  Prov.  Ill,  3 ;  Samuel  ben  Meir  to  Ex.  XIII,  9. 

3  Ex.  XIII,  9  and  commentaries. 

4  Stanley  :  Hist,  of  the  Jewish  Church,  I,  561 ;  Peterman :  Reisen  int  Orient, 
I,  237. 

6  Curtiss :  TJ rsemitische  Religion,  Chap.  XX-XXI ;  Kohler :  Monatschrift, 
1893,  p.  445,  note. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS 


both  as  a  religious  symbol  and  an  amulet.  This  was  certainly 
the  case  with  the  mezuzzah  on  the  doorpost  and  probably 
with  the  blue  thread  at  the  corners  of  the  tallith.1  As  both 
phylacteries  and  tallith  came  into  use  at  the  divine  service  in 
connection  with  the  recital  of  the  Shema  and  the  chapter  on 
the  zizith ,  the  symbols  assumed  a  higher  meaning.  Arrayed 
in  his  vestments,  the  pious  Jew  offered  daily  allegiance  to 
his  Maker,  feeling  that  he  was  thereby  protected  from  evil 
within  and  without;  similarly,  the  sacred  sign  upon  the 
door  both  consecrated  and  protected  his  home.  Even  with 
this  conception  the  talismanic  character  was  never  quite 
forgotten.  Throughout  the  Middle  Ages  these  ceremonies 
were  observed  as  divine  commandments ;  and  tradition 
having  seemingly  fixed  them  for  all  time,  the  Jew  took 
great  pride  in  the  fact  that  he  was  “ distinguished”  in  many 
ways,  and  especially  in  his  forms  of  worship.2  Of  course, 
they  distinguished  him  far  more  when  these  ceremonies 
were  practiced  for  the  entire  day.  Since  the  modern  era  has 
brought  the  Jew  nearer  to  his  neighbors  and  he  has  opened 
the  Synagogue  to  invite  the  non -Jewish  world  to  hear  its 
teachings,  these  practices  have  lost  their  hold  upon  the 
people,  becoming  meaningless  forms.  The  wearing  of  these 
sacred  symbols  while  at  prayer  seems  superfluous  as  a 
means  of  “turning  men’s  hearts  away  from  frivolous  and 
sinful  thoughts.”  3 

7.  The  most  important  institution  of  the  Synagogue,  and 
the  one  most  fraught  with  blessing  for  all  mankind,  is  the 
Sabbath.  Although  its  name  and  existence  point  to  a  Baby- 

1  Ber.  6  a,  14  b,  23  a,  b;  Tos.  Ber.  VII,  25;  Midr.  Teh.  to  Ps.  VI,  1 ;  Yer. 
Peah I,  15  d;  Targum  Song  of  Songs,  VIII,  3;  Pes.  mb;  Schorr:  HeHalutz, 
VII,  56-57;  Baentsch:  Comm,  to  Num.  XV,  37;  also  Schuerer,  G.  V.  II, 
483-486. 

2  Cant.  R.  Ill,  11 ;  Sifre  Deut.  43 ;  M.  K.  16  b. 

3  Kohler,  1.  c. :  comp.  Schechter :  Studies,  I,  249 ;  Morris  Joseph,  1.  c.,  p.  178, 
where  he  quotes  Maimonides  H.  Tefillin  IV,  25. 


456 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Ionian  origin,1  it  is  still  the  peculiar  creation  of  the  Jewish 
genius  and  a  chief  pillar  of  the  Jewish  religion.  As  a  day  of 
rest  crowning  the  daily  labor  of  the  week,  it  testifies  to  the 
Creator  of  the  universe  who  made  all  that  is  in  accordance 
with  His  divine  plan  of  perfection.  The  underlying  idea 
expressed  in  Scripture  is  that  the  Sabbath  is  a  divine  insti¬ 
tution.  As  God  himself  worked  out  His  design  for  the  world 
in  absolute  freedom  and  rested  with  delight  at  its  comple¬ 
tion,  so  man  is  to  follow  His  example,  working  during  six 
days  of  the  week  and  then  enjoying  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath 
with  a  mind  elated  by  higher  thoughts.  Moreover,  the  day 
of  rest  observed  by  Israel  should  recall  his  redemption  from 
the  slavery  and  continual  labor  of  Egypt.  Thereby  every 
creature  made  in  God’s  image,  the  slave  and  stranger  as  well 
as  the  born  Israelite,  is  given  the  heavenly  boon  of  freedom 
and  recreation  to  hallow  the  labor  of  the  week.  There  are 
thus  two  explanations  given  for  the  Sabbath,  one  in  the 
Decalogue  of  Exodus,  the  Holiness  Code  and  Priestly  Code,2 
the  other  in  the  Decalogue  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant.3 

These  two  views,  in  turn,  gave  rise  to  different  conceptions 
of  the  Sabbath  laws.  Many  ancient  teachers  laid  chief  stress 
on  the  letter  of  the  law  which  bids  men  cease  from  labor. 
Others,  who  penetrated  farther  into  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy 
and  the  Covenant  Code,  emphasized  the  human  need  for 
relaxation  and  refreshment  of  soul.  The  older  school,  espe¬ 
cially  the  Sadducees,  demanded  absolute  cessation  of  labor  on 
pain  of  death  for  any  work,  however  insignificant,  and  even 
for  the  moving  from  one  place  to  another.  They  thought  of 

1  See  art.  Sabbath  in  various  encyclopedias  and  the  Babel-Bibel  contro¬ 
versies;  Zimmern  and  Schrader:  K.  A.  T.,  II,  592  f. ;  Jastrow :  American 
Journal  of  Theology,  1898,  p.  315-352. 

2  Ex.  XX,  8-1 1 ;  XVI,  23-29;  XXXV,  2-3;  XXXI,  13;  comp.  Jer. 
XVIII,  21-27;  Neh.  XIII,  15-18. 

8  Deut.  V,  12-15;  Ex.  XXIII,  12;  XXXIV,  21;  comp.  Isa.  LVIII,  13. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  457 


the  Sabbath  as  a  sign  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  Israel, 
and  hence  held  that  it  should  be  observed  as  punctiliously 
as  possible.1  In  the  same  measure  as  the  Pharisees,  with  their 
program  of  religious  democracy  and  common  sense,  obtained  |  ’ 
the  upper  hand,  the  Biblical  strictness  of  the  Sabbath  law  was  t 
modified.  The  term  labor  was  defined  by  analogy  with  the 
work  done  for  the  tabernacle,  and  so  restricted  as  to  make  the 
death  penalty  much  more  limited.2  Moreover,  the  Pharisees 
held  that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the 
Sabbath ; 3  so,  although  they  adhered  strictly  to  the  prohibi¬ 
tion  of  labor,  the  Sabbath  received  at  their  hands  more  of  the 
other  element,  and  became  a  day  for  the  elevation  of  the 
soul,  “a  day  of  delight”  for  the  spirit.4  The  whole  man, 
body  and  soul  alike,  should  enjoy  God’s  gifts  more  fully  on 
this  day ;  he  should  cast  off  care  and  sanctify  the  day  by 
praise  offered  to  God  at  the  family  table.  At  a  very  early 
period  in  Israel  the  Sabbath  was  distinguished  by  the  words  of 
instruction  and  comfort  offered  by  the  prophets  to  the  people 
who  consulted  them  on  the  day  of  rest.5  During  the  Exile 
and  afterward  the  people  assembled  on  the  Sabbath  to  hear 
the  word  of  God  read  from  the  Torah  and  the  prophets  and 
to  join  in  prayer  and  song,  which  soon  became  a  permanent 
institution.6  Thus  the  Sabbath  elevated  and  educated  the 
Jewish  people,  and  afterward  transferred  its  blessings  also 
to  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan  world.  Especially  during 
the  Middle  Ages  the  Sabbath  became  an  oasis,  a  refreshing 
spring  of  water  for  the  Jew.  All  through  the  week  he  was  a 

1  See  Jubilees  II,  23-30;  L,  6;  Geiger,  Zeitsch .,  1868,  116;  Nachgel. 
Schr.,  Ill,  286  f. ;  V,  142  f.;  Schechter:  Document  of  a  Jewish  Sect ,  I;  XXV; 
XLVIII-L ;  Halevi :  The  Commandments  of  the  Sabbath  for  the  Falashas, 
1902  ;  Harkavy  L.  K.,  II,  69  f.,  for  the  Karaites. 

2  Shab.  VII,  2,  70  a ;  Mek.  Wayakhel. 

3  Mek.  Ki  Thisla  1,  comp.  Mark  II,  2if. 

4  Isa.  LVIII;  Shab.  118  a,  b;  Mek.  Yithro  VII;  Pes,  R.  XXIII,  p.  121. 

5 II  Kings  IV,  23.  6  Philo  II,  137,  166,  281,  631. 


45& 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Pariah  in  the  outside  world,  but  the  Sabbath  brought  him 
bliss  in  his  home  and  spiritual  power  in  his  Synagogue  and 
school.  Cheerfully  he  bore  the  yoke  of  statutes  and  ordi¬ 
nances  that  grew  ever  heavier  under  the  rabbinical  amplifica¬ 
tion;  for  he  hailed  the  Sabbath  as  the  “ queen”  that  raised 
him  from  a  hated  wanderer  to  a  prince  in  his  own  domain.1 

Modern  life  has  worked  great  changes  in  the  Jewish  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  Sabbath.  Caught  up  in  the  whirl  of  commercial 
and  industrial  competition,  the  Jew,  like  Ixion  in  the  fable, 
is  bound  to  his  wheel  of  business,  and  enjoys  neither  rest  for 
his  body  nor  elevation  for  his  soul  on  God’s  holy  day.  True, 
the  Synagogue  still  preserves  the  sanctity  of  the  ancient 
Sabbath,  however  small  may  be  the  attendance  at  the  divine 
service,  and  in  many  pious  homes  the  family  still  rallies  around 
the  festive  table,  lighted  by  the  Sabbath  lamp  and  decorated 
by  the  symbolic  cup  of  wine.  But  for  the  majority  of  Western 
Jews  the  Sabbath  has  lost  its  pristine  sanctity  and  splendor, 
to  the  great  detriment  of  Jewish  religious  life.  Therefore 
many  now  ask:  “Is  it  sufficient  to  have  a  vicarious  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  historical  Sabbath,  the  ‘sign  between  God  and 
Israel,’  by  an  hour  or  two  in  the  Synagogue,  but  without  rest 
for  the  entire  day?  Or  shall  the  civic  day  of  rest,  though 
Christian  in  origin  and  character,  take  the  place  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  with  its  sacred  traditions,  so  that  possibly  at  last 
it  may  become  the  Sabbath  day  predicted  by  the  seer  upon 
which  ‘  all  flesh  shall  come  to  worship  before  the  Lord  ’  ?  ”  2  In 
the  halcyon  days  of  the  reform  movement  in  Germany  this 
view  was  often  expressed  when  the  radical  reformers  cele¬ 
brated  the  civic  day  of  rest  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  not  in 
the  spirit  of  dissension,  but  for  the  sake  of  giving  Judaism  a 
larger  scope  and  a  wider  outlook.  In  America,  too,  the  idea 

1  See  Schechter :  Studies ,  I,  249  f. ;  Morris  Joseph,  1.  c.,  202-214. 

2  See  David  Philipson :  Reform  Movement  in  Judaism,  275-302,  503-508; 
E.  G.  Hirsch  in  J.  E.,  art.  Sabbath;  Sabbath  and  Sunday. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  459 


of  transferring  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday  was  broached  by  some 
leading  Reform  rabbis  and  met  with  hearty  support  on  the 
part  of  their  congregations.  Since  then  a  more  conservative 
view  has  taken  hold  of  most  of  the  liberal  elements  of  Jewry 
also  in  America.  While  divine  service  on  Sundays  has  been 
introduced  with  decided  success  in  many  cities  and  eminent 
preachers  bring  the  message  of  Judaism  home  to  thousands 
that  would  otherwise  remain  strangers  to  the  house  of  God 
and  to  the  influence  of  religion,  the  conviction  has  become 
well  established  that  the  continuity  with  our  great  past  must 
be  upheld,  and  the  general  feeling  is  that  the  historical  Sab¬ 
bath  should  under  no  condition  be  entirely  given  up.  It  is 
inseparably  connected  with  the  election  of  Israel  as  a  priest- 
people,  while  the  Christian  “ Lord’s  Day”  represents  views 
and  tendencies  opposed  to  those  of  Judaism,  whether  con¬ 
sidered  in  its  original  meaning  or  in  that  given  it  by  the 
Church.1  The  Jew  may  properly  use  the  civic  day  of  rest 
in  common  with  his  Christian  fellow-citizen  for  religious 
devotion  and  instruction  for  young  and  old ;  it  will  supple¬ 
ment  his  neglected  Sabbath  service,  until  conditions  have 
changed.  Perhaps  the  Jew  in  Mohammedan  countries  may 
even  at  some  time  observe  Friday  as  is  done  by  the  Mosque, 
and  accordingly  consecrate  this  day  in  common  with  his  fellow- 
citizens.  Still,  between  the  Sabbath  observed  by  the  Church 
and  the  one  of  the  Mosque  stands  the  Jewish  Sabbath  in 
solemn  grandeur  and  patriarchal  dignity,  waiting  with  Israel, 
its  keeper  and  ally,  for  the  day  when  all  humanity  will  worship 
the  one  holy  God  of  Abraham,  and  when  our  ancient  Sabbath 
may  truly  become  the  Sabbath  of  the  world. 

8.  In  all  lands  time  was  originally  regulated  by  the  move¬ 
ments  of  the  moon,  which  are  within  the  observation  of  all. 
The  alternation  of  its  increase  and  decrease  divided  the  month 
into  two  parts,  which  were  then  subdivided  into  four.  There- 

1  See  Schaff-Herzog  Encyc.,  art.  Sunday. 


460 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


fore  the  original  month  among  both  the  Babylonians  and  the 
Hebrews  consisted  of  four  weeks  of  seven  days  each,  the  last 
day  of  each  week  being  the  Sabbath,  the  “day  of  stands  till/ ’ 
and  two  days  of  the  new  moon.1  Both  the  new  moon  and  full 
moon  were  special  days  of  celebration,2  and  later  two  other 
Sabbath  days  were  added  between  them  to  correspond  to  the 
four  phases  of  the  moon.  Still  later  the  week  was  detached 
altogether  from  the  moon  and  made  a  fixed  period  of  seven 
days,  solemnly  ended  by  the  Sabbath.  Thus  Judaism  raised 
the  Sabbath  above  all  dependence  on  nature  and  into  the  realm 
of  holiness.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  became  the  witness  to  God, 
the  Creator  ruling  above  nature  in  absolute  freedom.3 

Still  the  ancient  festival  of  the  new  moon  was  preserved  as 
an  observance  in  the  Temple,  and  it  afterward  survived  only 
in  the  liturgy  of  the  Synagogue.  While  ancient  Israel  had 
observed  the  New  Moon  as  a  day  of  rest  even  more  sacred 
than  the  Sabbath,4  the  Priestly  Code  placed  it  among  the  fes¬ 
tivals  only  as  a  day  of  sacrifice,  but  as  neither  a  day  of  rest 
nor  of  popular  celebration.5  Beside  the  recital  of  the  Hallel 
Psalms  and  the  Mussaf  (“additional”)  prayer  in  the  Syna¬ 
gogue  no  religious  significance  was  attached  to  it  in  the  daily 
life  of  the  people.  Still  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  calendar  was 
regulated  by  the  moon,  while  that  of  other  nations  depended 
on  the  solar  year,  led  the  rabbis  to  compare  the  unique  his¬ 
tory  of  Israel  to  the  course  of  the  moon.  As  the  moon  changes 
continually,  waxing  and  waning  but  ever  renewing  itself  after 
each  decline,  so  Israel  renews  itself  after  every  fall ;  while  the 
proud  nations  of  the  world,  which  count  their  year  by  the 
course  of  the  sun,  rise  and  set,  as  it  does,  with  no  hope  of  re- 

1  See  I  Sam.  XX,  5-27,  where  the  two  new-moon  days  are  spoken  of  as 
approaching,  proving  the  use  of  the  Babylonian  month  of  four  weeks  of  seven 
days  each,  and  two  new-moon  days. 

2 II  Kings  IV,  23 ;  Prov.  VII,  20 ;  comp.  Ps.  LXXXI,  4,  Kese. 

8  Ex.  XX,  11 ;  Gen.  II,  2-3. 

4 II  Kings  IV,  23  ;  Isa.  I,  13  ;  LXVI,  23.  6  Num.  XXVIII,  11  f. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  461 


newal.1  At  the  same  time,  assurance  was  found  in  the  pro¬ 
phetic  words  that  “the  light  of  the  moon  shall  be  as  the  light 
of  the  sun  and  the  light  of  the  sun  shall  be  sevenfold  as  the 
light  of  the  seven  days”  and  “thy  (Israel’s)  sun  shall  no  more 
go  down,  neither  shall  thy  moon  withdraw  itself,  for  the  Lord 
shall  be  thine  everlasting  light.”  2 

9.  The  various  Jewish  festivals,  like  the  Sabbath,  were 
detached  from  their  original  relation  to  nature  and  turned 
into  historical  memorials,  eloquent  testimonies  to  the  great 
works  of  God  and  of  Israel’s  power  of  rejuvenation.  The 
Passover  was  originally  the  spring  festival  of  the  shepherds 
when  they  hallowed  the  thresholds,3  but  was  later  identified 
with  the  agricultural  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  in  Palestine, 
and  at  an  early  period  was  further  transformed  into  a  festival 
of  redemption.  The  former  rites  of  consecration  of  tent 
and  herd  were  taken  as  symbols  of  the  wondrous  deliverance 
of  the  Hebrews  from  the  Egyptian  yoke.  The  sacrifice  of 
the  “passing  over  the  threshold,”  with  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  on  the  doorposts  and  lintels  of  each  house,  observed 
each  spring  exactly  as  is  still  done  among  the  semi-pagan 
inhabitants  of  Syria  and  Arabia,  was  reinterpreted.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Mosaic  code  it  indicated  the  wondrous  passing  of 
the  angel  of  death  over  the  thresholds  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt,  while  he  entered  the  homes  of  the  Egyptians  to  slay 
the  first-born  and  avenge  the  wrongs  of  Israel.4  Likewise 
the  cakes  of  bread  without  leaven  (the  Mazzoth )  baked  for 

1  Mek.  Bo  I ;  Pes.  R.  XV ;  P.  d.  R.  El.  LI ;  Sanh.  42  a ;  Singer’s  Prayerb ., 
292. 

2  Isa.  XXX,  26 ;  LX,  20. 

3  Ex.  XII,  n-27;  Deut.  XVI,  1;  see  the  commentaries,  also  Clay  Trum¬ 
bull:  The  Threshold  Covenant;  Curtiss,  1.  c. 

4  In  Deut.  the  Passover  sacrifice  was  the  first-born  of  the  flock,  see  Deut. 
XVI,  2,  comp,  with  Ex.  XIII,  2-16,  and  the  celebration  took  place  on  the 
night  of  the  new  moon.  The  Priestly  Code  observed  it  on  the  full  moon,  with 
a  lamb  instead  of  the  first-born  sheep  or  cattle.  Ex.  XII,  3  f. ;  Lev.  XXIII,  5 
(the  Holiness  Code) ;  Josh.  V,  10. 


462 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  festival  were  taken  as  reminders  of  the  hasty  exodus 
of  the  fathers  from  the  land  of  oppression.  Thus  the  spring 
festival  became  a  memorial  of  the  springtime  of  liberty  for 
the  nation  and  at  the  same  time  a  consecration  of  the  Jewish 
home  to  the  covenant  God  of  Israel.  God  was  to  enter  the 
Jewish  home  as  He  did  in  Egypt,  as  the  Redeemer  and  Pro¬ 
tector  of  Israel.  Young  and  old  listened  with  perennial  inter¬ 
est  to  the  story  of  the  deliverance,  offering  praise  for  the 
wonders  of  the  past  and  voicing  their  confidence  in  the  future 
redemption  from  oppression  and  woe. 

However  burdensome  the  Passover  minutiae,  especially  in 
regard  to  the  prohibition  of  leaven,  became  to  the  Jewish  house¬ 
hold,  the  predominant  feature  was  always  an  exuberance  of 
joy.  In  the  darkest  days  of  medievalism  the  synagogue  and 
home  resounded  with  song  and  thanksgiving,  and  the  young 
imbibed  the  joy  and  comfort  of  their  elders  through  the  beau¬ 
tiful  symbols  of  the  feast  and  the  richly  adorned  tale  of 
the  deliverance  (the  Haggadah).  The  Passover  feast  with  its 
“night  of  divine  watching”  endowed  the  Jew  ever  anew  with 
endurance  during  the  dark  night  of  medieval  tyranny,  and 
with  faith  in  “the  Keeper  of  Israel  who  slumbereth  not  nor 
sleepeth.”  1  Moreover,  as  the  springtide  of  nature  fills  each 
creature  with  joy  and  hope,  so  Israel’s  feast  of  redemption 
promises  the  great  day  of  liberty  to  those  who  still  chafe  under 
the  yoke  of  oppression.  The  modern  Jew  is  beginning  to  see 
in  the  reawakening  of  his  religious  and  social  life  in  western 
lands  the  token  of  the  future  liberation  of  all  mankind.2  The 
Passover  feast  brings  him  the  clear  and  hopeful  message  of 
freedom  for  humanity  from  all  bondage  of  body  and  of  spirit. 

10.  The  Feast  of  Weeks  or  Festival  of  the  First  Fruits 
in  Biblical  times  was  merely  a  farmer’s  holiday  at  the  end  of 

1  About  the  watch-night,  see  Jubilees  XL VIII,  5 ;  Pesah.  109  b. 

2  See  Einhorn’s  Prayerbook,  485;  Holdheim:  Predigten,  1853,  II,  189, 
referring  to  Jer.  XXIII,  7-8;  Tos.  Ber.  I,  12;  Ber.  12  b. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  463 


the  seven  weeks  of  harvest.  At  the  beginning  of  the  harvest 
parched  grains  of  barley  were  offered,  while  at  its  end  two 
loaves  of  the  new  wheat  flour  were  brought  as  a  thank-offer¬ 
ing  for  the  new  crop.1  Rabbinical  Judaism,  however,  trans¬ 
formed  it  into  a  historical  feast  by  making  it  the  memorial 
day  of  the  giving  of  the  Ten  Words  on  Mount  Sinai.  It  was 
thus  given  a  universal  significance,  as  the  Midrash  has  it, 
‘Turning  the  Feast  of  the  First  Fruits  into  a  festival  com¬ 
memorating  the  ripening  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  spiritual 
harvest  for  the  people  of  the  covenant.”  2  Henceforth  the  Ten 
Words  were  to  be  solemnly  read  to  the  congregation  on  that 
day,  and  the  pledge  of  loyalty  made  by  the  fathers  thereby 
renewed  each  year  by  Israel’s  faithful  sons.  The  leaders  of 
Reform  Judaism  surrounded  the  day  with  new  charm  by  the 
introduction  of  the  confirmation  ceremony,3  thus  rendering 
it  a  feast  of  consecration  of  the  Jewish  youth  to  the  ancient 
covenant,  of  yearly  renewal  of  loyalty  by  the  rising  genera¬ 
tion  to  the  ancestral  faith. 

11.  The  main  festival  in  Biblical  times  was  the  Feast  of 
Sukkoth ,  or  Tabernacles,  the  great  harvest  festival  of  autumn, 
when  the  people  flocked  to  the  central  sanctuary  in  solemn 
procession,  carrying  palms  and  other  plants.  Hence  this 
was  called  the  Hag  or  Pilgrimage  Feast.4  In  the  post-exilic 
Priestly  Code  this  festival  also  was  made  historical,  and  the 
name  Feast  of  Sukkoth  (which  denoted  originally  Feast  of 
Pilgrimage  Tents)  was  connected  with  the  exodus  from  Egypt, 
when  the  town  of  Sukkoth  (possibly  named  from  the  tents  of 
their  encampment)  was  made  the  rallying  point  of  the  fugi¬ 
tive  Hebrews  at  their  departure  from  Egypt.  The  com¬ 
mentators  no  longer  understood  this  connection,  and  traced 

1  Ex.  XXIII,  16;  XXXIV,  22;  Deut.  XVI,  9;  Lev.  XXIII,  10-17. 

2  Ex.  R.  XXXI,  17,  with  reference  to  Ex.  XIX,  1 ;  Jubilees  VI,  17-21. 

3  See  J.  E.,  art.  Confirmation. 

4  Deut.  XVI,  1 3 ;  Lev.  XXIII,  34-43 ;  comp.  I  Kings  VIII,  65 ;  Ezek. 
XLV,  23 ;  R-  b-  Sh.  I,  2. 


464 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  name  to  the  tents  erected  by  the  people  in  their  wander¬ 
ings  through  the  wilderness.1  It  seems  that  from  very  ancient 
times  popular  rites  were  performed  at  this  feast,  which  took  a 
specially  solemn  form  in  the  holding  of  a  procession  from  the 
pool  of  Shiloah  at  the  foot  of  the  Temple  mount  to  the  altar 
in  the  Temple,  to  offer  there  a  libation  of  water,  which  was  a 
sort  of  symbolic  prayer  for  rain  for  the  opening  year.  Ob¬ 
viously,  it  is  this  feast  which  is  referred  to  in  the  last  chapter 
of  Zechariah,  while  this  outburst  of  popular  joy  found  a  deep 
response  among  the  pious  leaders  of  the  people  and  is  echoed 
in  the  liturgy  of  the  medieval  Synagogue.2  The  Halakic 
rules  concerning  the  tabernacle  and  the  four  plans  for  it 
tended  to  obscure  the  real  significance  of  the  festival ; 3  yet 
in  the  synagogue  and  the  home  it  retained  its  original  char¬ 
acter  as  a  “ season  of  gladness.”  The  joyous  gratitude  to 
God  for  His  protection  of  Israel  during  the  forty  years  of 
wanderings  through  the  wilderness  expanded  into  thanksgiving 
for  His  guidance  throughout  the  forty  centuries  of  Israel’s 
pilgrimage  through  all  lands  and  ages.  This  joy  culminated 
on  the  last  day  in  the  Feast  of  Rejoicing  in  the  Law,  when 
the  annual  cycle  of  readings  from  the  Pentateuch  was  com¬ 
pleted  in  the  Synagogue  amid  overflowing  pride  in  the  posses¬ 
sion  of  God’s  law  by  Israel.4  The  rabbis  gave  Sukkoth  a  uni¬ 
versal  significance  by  taking  the  seventy  bullocks  prescribed 
for  the  seven  days  as  offerings  for  the  salvation  of  the  seventy 
nations  of  the  world,  while  the  one  bullock  off ered  on  the  last  day 
suggested  the  uniqueness  of  Israel  as  God’s  peculiar  people.5 

1  See  Ex.  XII,  37;  XIII,  20;  Num.  XXXIII,  5,  and  comp.  Mek.  Bo  14; 
Sifra  Emor  XVII. 

2  Zech.  XIV,  16-19;  comp.  Is.  XII,  3;  Suk.  V,  1-4;  Tos.  Suk.  IV,  1-9; 
Piyut  to  the(  Sukkoth  festival. 

3  Suk.  I-IV ;  Talmud  and  Codes. 

4IbnYarchi:  Manhig,  H.  Suk.  53-60;  T.  O.  Ch.  DCLXIX;  J.  E.,  art. 
Simhath  Torah. 

B  Pesik.  193  b;  Suk.  55  b;  Philo  :  De  Victimis,  I,  2,  II,  238-239. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  465 


12.  The  highest  point  of  religious  devotion  in  the  syna¬ 
gogue  is  reached  on  the  New  Year’s  day  and  the  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment  preceding  the  Feast  of  Sukkoth.  These  are  first  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  Priestly  Code  and  were  undoubtedly  instituted 
after  the  time  of  Ezra ; 1  they  were  then  brought  into  closer 
connection  by  the  Pharisees  and  permeated  with  lofty  ideas 
which  struck  the  deepest  chords  of  the  human  heart  and 
voiced  the  sublimest  truths  of  religion  for  all  time  to  come. 

The  New  Year’s  Day  on  the  first  of  Tishri  appears  in  the 
Mosaic  Code  simply  as  the  memorial  “Day  of  the  Blowing  of 
the  Trumpet,”  because  of  the  increased  number  of  trumpet 
blasts  to  usher  in  the  seventh  or  Sabbatical  month  with  its 
great  pilgrim  feast.  Under  Babylonian  influence,  however, 
it  received  a  new  name  and  meaning.  The  Babylonian  New 
Year  was  looked  upon  as  a  heavenly  day  of  destiny  when  the 
fates  of  all  beings  on  earth  and  in  heaven  were  foretold  for 
the  whole  year  from  the  tables  of  destiny.  The  leaders  of 
Jewish  thought  also  adopted  the  first  day  of  the  holy  month 
of  Tishri  as  a  day  of  divine  judgment,  when  God  allots  to  each 
man  his  destiny  for  the  year  according  to  his  record  of  good 
and  evil  deeds  in  the  book  of  life.2  Accordingly,  the  stirring 
notes  of  the  Shofar  were  to  strike  the  hearts  of  the  people 
with  fear,  that  they  might  repent  of  their  sins  and  improve 
their  ways  during  the  new  year.  As  fixed  by  tradition,  the 
liturgy  contained  three  blasts  of  the  Shofar  to  proclaim 
three  great  ideas  of  Judaism : 3  the  recognition  of  God  as 
King  of  the  world ;  as  Judge,  remembering  the  actions  and 
thoughts  of  men  and  nations  for  their  reward  and  punishment ; 
and  as  the  Ruler  of  history,  who  revealed  Himself  to  Israel 
in  the  trumpet-blasts  of  Sinai  and  will  gather  all  men  and 


1  Lev.  XXIII,  24-32;  comp.  Neh.  VIII,  1-18. 

2  J.  E.,  art.  New  Year’s  Day;  Life,  Book  of. 

3  R.  h.  Sh.  IV,  6-7 ;  Tos.  R.  h.  Sh.  IV,  4-9 ;  R.  h.  Sh.  27  a;  Singer’s  Prayerb., 
247-254,  and  Abrahams  Ann.  CXCV,  hi  f.;  and  Union  Prayer  Book ,  II,  70-75. 


466 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


nations  by  the  trumpet-blasts  of  the  Judgment  Day  at  the 
end  of  time. 

The  main  purpose  of  the  New  Year  was  to  render  it  a  day 
of  renewal  of  the  heart,  so  that  man  might  put  himself  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  great  Judge  on  high  and  receive  life  anew  from 
His  hand,  while  he  fills  his  spirit  with  new  and  better  resolves 
for  the  future.  Judaism  does  not  place  the  day  of  judgment 
after  death,  when  repentance  is  beyond  reach  and  the  sinner 
can  only  await  damnation,  as  is  done  by  Christianity  after 
the  apocalyptic  views  adopted  from  the  Parsees.  The  Jew¬ 
ish  judgment  day  occurs  at  the  beginning  of  every  year,  a 
day  of  self-examination  and  improvement  of  men  before  God. 
On  this  day  —  in  the  orthodox  Synagogue  on  the  second  day 
of  the  New  Year  —  the  chapter  is  read  from  the  Torah  de¬ 
scribing  Abraham’s  great  act  of  faith  on  Mount  Moriah,  the 
heroic  pattern  of  Jewish  martyrdom,  and  stirring  prayers, 
litanies,  and  songs  prepare  the  worshiper  for  the  “  great 
day”  of  the  year,  the  Day  of  Atonement,  which  is  to  come 
on  the  tenth  day  of  Tishri,  the  last  of  the  ten  Days  of 
Repentance. 

13.  The  Day  of  Atonement  figures  in  the  Mosaic  Code  as 
the  day  when  the  high  priest  in  the  Temple  performed  the 
important  function  of  expiation  for  the  sanctuary,  the  priest¬ 
hood,  and  the  people.  The  mass  of  the  people  were  to  observe 
the  day  from  evening  to  evening  as  a  Sabbath  and  a  fast  day 
to  obtain  pardon  for  their  sins  before  God.1  A  very  primitive 
rite  which  survived  for  this  day  was  the  selection  of  two  goats, 
one  of  which  was  to  be  sent  to  Azazel,  the  demon  of  the  wil¬ 
derness,  to  bear  away  the  sins  of  the  people,  while  the  other 
was  to  be  offered  to  the  Lord  as  a  sacrifice.  We  learn  from 
the  Mishnaic  sources  that  the  sending  forth  of  the  scapegoat 
was  accompanied  by  strange  practices  betraying  intense  popu¬ 
lar  interest,  and  its  arrival  at  the  bottom  of  the  wild  ravine, 
1  Lev.  XVI,  2-34 ;  comp.  Ezek.  XLV,  18-20. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  467 


where  Azazel  was  supposed  to  dwell,  was  announced  by  signals 
from  station  to  station,  until  they  reached  the  Temple  mount, 
and  the  news  of  it  was  then  received  with  wild  bursts  of 
joy  by  the  people.  The  young  men  and  maidens  assembled 
on  the  heights  of  Jerusalem,  like  the  men  at  the  pilgrimage 
feast  at  Shiloh,  and  held,  as  it  were,  nuptial  dances.1  The  day 
was  one  of  communion  with  God  for  the  high-priest  alone ; 
he  confessed  his  sins  and  those  of  the  people  and  implored 
forgiveness,  and  it  was  actually  believed  that  he  beheld  the 
Majesty  of  God  on  that  day  when  he  entered  the  Holy  of 
Holies  with  the  incense  shrouding  his  face.2 

In  contrast  to  this  priestly  monopoly  of  service  with  its 
external  and  archaic  forms  of  expiation,  the  founders  of  the 
Synagogue  invested  the  Day  of  Atonement  with  a  higher 
meaning  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  the  prophets  of  old,  the 
doctrine  of  God’s  mercy  and  paternal  love.  Atonement  could 
no  longer  be  obtained  by  the  priest  with  the  sacrificial  blood, 
the  incense,  or  the  scapegoat;  it  must  come  through  the 
repentance  of  the  sinner,  leading  him  back  from  the  path  of 
error  to  the  way  of  God.  As  the  high-priest  in  the  Temple, 
so  now  every  son  of  Israel  was  to  spend  the  day  in  the  house 
of  prayer,  confessing  his  sins  before  God  with  a  contrite  heart, 
awaiting  with  awe  the  realization  of  God’s  promise  to  Moses : 
“I  have  pardoned  according  to  thy  word.”  3  Indeed,  a  for¬ 
ward  step  in  the  history  of  religion  is  represented  in  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  verse  :  “  For  on  this  day  he  —  that  is,  the  high- 
priest  —  shall  make  atonement  for  you  to  cleanse  you,” 
which  was  now  understood  to  refer  to  God :  “He  shall  make 
atonement  for  you  through  this  day.”  4  Therefore  R.  Akiba 

1  Yoma  VI ;  Kalish’s  commentary  to  Lev.  XVI ;  Taan.  IV,  8 ;  comp.  Jud. 
XXI,  21;  see  Morgenstern  in  Journal  Oriental  Soc.,  1917,  and  J.  Q.  R.  1917, 
p.  94. 

2  Yoma  IV-VI ;  comp.  Lev.  R.  XXI,  11 ;  V,  1. 

3  Num.  XIV,  20;  XV,  26. 

4  Lev.  XVI,  30;  Sifra  Ahare  VI;  Yoma  30  b;  Yer.  Yoma  V,  42  c. 


468 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


could  exclaim  proudly,  as  he  thought  of  the  Paulinian  doc¬ 
trine  of  vicarious  atonement:  “ Happy  are  ye  Israelites! 
Before  whom  do  you  cleanse  yourselves  from  sin,  and  who 
cleanses  you?  Your  Father  in  heaven!”1  No  mediator 
was  needed  between  man  and  his  heavenly  Father  from  the 
moment  that  each  individual  learned  to  approach  God  in  true 
humility  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  imploring  His  pardon 
for  sin  and  promising  to  amend  his  ways.  With  profound 
intuition  the  rabbis  attributed  God’s  pardon  to  the  petition 
of  Moses,  saying  that  He  revealed  Himself  in  His  attribute 
of  mercy  on  the  very  tenth  of  Tishri,  foreshadowing  for  all 
time  the  divine  forgiveness  of  sin  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.2 

As  the  Mishnah  expressly  states,  even  the  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment  cannot  bring  forgiveness  so  long  as  injustice  cleaves 
to  one’s  hand  or  evil  speech  to  the  lips  and  no  attempt  is 
made  to  repair  the  injury  and  appease  one’s  fellow-man.3 
Where  justice  is  lacking,  divine  love  cannot  exert  its  saving 
power.  God’s  mercy  and  long-suffering  cannot  remove  sin, 
unless  the  root  of  evil  is  removed  from  the  heart  and  every 
wrong  redressed  in  sincere  repentance.  The  spirit  of  God 
is  invoked  on  these  great  days  at  the  year’s  commencement 
only  that  the  penitent  soul  may  thus  receive  strength  to 
improve  its  ways,  that  good  conduct  in  the  future  may 
atone  for  the  errors  of  the  past.  Surely  no  religion  in  the 
world  can  equal  the  sublime  teachings  of  the  New  Year’s  day 
and  the  Day  of  Atonement,  first  filling  the  heart  of  mortal 
man  with  awe  before  the  Judge  of  the  world  and  then  cheering 
it  with  the  assurance  of  God’s  paternal  love  being  ever  ready 
to  extend  mercy  to  His  repentant  children.  While  the  other 
festivals  of  the  year  are  specifically  Jewish  in  historic  associa- 

1  Yoma  VIII,  9. 

2  P.  d.  R.  El.  XLVI;  Taan.  30  b;  B.  B.  121  a;  S.  Olam  R.  VI;  T.  d.  El. 
Zutta  IV ;  Ex.  R.  LI,-  4.  Jubilees  XXXIV,  18-19  connects  the  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment  with  the  repentance  of  Joseph’s  brethren. 

3  Yoma,  1.  c. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  469 


tions  and  meaning,  these  two  days  on  the  threshold  of  each 
new  year  are  universally  human,  and  the  chief  prayers  for 
this  day  are  of  a  universal  character,  appealing  to  every  human 
heart.  Indeed,  it  is  characteristic  that  both  the  concluding 
service  for  the  day,  the  Neilah ,  and  the  Scriptural  reading 
of  the  Minhah  Service,  selected  from  the  book  of  Jonah,  tell 
that  God’s  all-forgiving  mercy  extends  to  the  non -Jewish 
world  as  well  as  to  the  Jew.1 

14.  Altogether,  the  Synagogue  gave  to  the  annual  cycle 
of  the  Jewish  life  a  beautiful  rhythm  in  its  alternation  of  joy 
and  sorrow,  lending  a  higher  solemnity  to  general  experience. 
All  the  festivals  mentioned  above  were  preceded  by  a  series 
of  Sabbaths  to  prepare  the  congregation  for  the  coming  of 
the  sad  or  the  joyful  season  with  its  historical  reminiscences. 
So  the  memorial  day  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the 
ninth  of  Ab,  had  three  weeks  previously  to  herald  in  a  day 
commemorating  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  the  seventeenth  of 
Tammuz;  but  it  had  also  seven  Sabbath  days  to  follow, 
which  afforded  words  of  consolation  and  hope  of  a  more  glori¬ 
ous  future  for  the  mourning  nation.2  Of  course,  the  brighter 
days  of  the  present  era  have  greatly  modified  the  lugubrious 
character  of  these  eventful  days  of  the  past,  even  in  those 
circles  where  the  hope  for  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  nation 
and  Temple  is  still  expressed  in  prayer.  At  the  same  time, 
the  commemoration  of  the  destruction  of  State  and  Temple, 
the  great  turning-point  in  the  history  of  the  Jew,  ought  to 
be  given  a  prominent  place  in  the  Reform  Synagogue  as 
well,  though  celebrated  in  the  spirit  of  progressive  Judaism. 

The  feast  of  Hanukkah  with  its  lights  and  song,  jubilant 
with  the  Maccabean  victory  in  the  battle  for  Israel’s  faith, 
still  resounds  in  the  Jewish  home  and  the  house  of  God  with 

1  Comp,  above,  Chapter  XXXIX. 

2  Josephus  J.  W.  VI,  4,  5 ;  Meg.  Taan.  V ;  Taan.  IV,  4;  Taan.  12  a,  29  ab. 
J.  E.,  art.  Ab,  Ninth  of;  see  also  Pes.  R.  XXVI-XXXIII;  Pesik.  no  b-148  a. 


470 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  prophetic  watchword  :  “Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but 
by  My  spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.”  1 

The  mirthful  feast  of  Purim,  with  its  half-serious,  half- 
jovial  use  of  the  scroll  of  Esther  and  its  popular  rejoicing, 
assumed  in  the  course  of  time  a  more  earnest  character, 
because  the  plot  of  Haman  and  the  rescue  of  the  Jews 
became  typical  in  Jewish  history.  Therefore  the  story  of 
Amalek,  the  arch-foe  of  Israel,  is  read  in  the  Synagogue  on 
the  preceding  Sabbath  as  a  reminder  of  the  constant  battle 
which  Israel  must  wage  for  its  supreme  religious  task.2 

15.  Through  the  entire  history  of  Judaism  since  the  Exile, 
the  Synagogue  brought  its  religious  truth  home  to  the  people 
each  Sabbath  and  holy  day  through  the  reading  and  ex¬ 
pounding  of  the  Torah  and  the  prophets.  These  words  of 
consolation  and  admonition  struck  a  deep  chord  in  the  hearts 
of  the  people,  so  that  learning  was  the  coveted  prize  of  all 
and  ignorance  of  the  law  became  a  mark  of  inferiority.  Beside 
these  stated  occasions,  all  times  of  joy  or  sadness  such  as 
weddings  and  funerals  were  given  some  attention  in  the  Syna¬ 
gogue,  as  linking  the  individual  to  the  communal  life,  and 
linking  his  personal  joy  and  sorrow  with  the  past  sadness  and 
future  glory  of  Jerusalem,  as  if  they  but  mirrored  the  greater 
events  of  the  people.  Thus  the  whole  life  was  to  be  placed 
in  the  service  of  the  social  body,  and  could  not  be  torn  asunder 
or  divided  into  things  holy  and  things  profane.  Religion 
must  send  forth  its  rays  like  the  sun,  illumining  and  warming 
all  of  man’s  deeds  and  thoughts. 

16.  The  weakness  of  the  Synagogue  was  its  Orientalism. 
Amid  all  the  changes  of  time  and  environment,  it  remained 
separated  from  the  surrounding  world  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  could  no  longer  exert  an  influence  to  win  outsiders  for  its 
great  truths.  Until  recently  the  Hebrew  language  was  re- 

1Zech.  IV,  6;  J.  E.,  art.  Hanukka;  Maccabees. 

2  Meg.  IV,  5;  18  a,  21  b;  J.  E.,  art.  Purim;  Esther;  Sifre  to  Deut.  296. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  471 


tained  for  the  entire  liturgy,  although  it  had  become  unin¬ 
telligible  to  the  majority  of  the  Jews  in  western  lands,  and 
even  though  the  rabbis  had  declared  in  Talmudic  times  that 
the  verse:  “Hear  O  Israel,  the  Lord  is  our  God,  the  Lord 
is  One”  indicates  that  the  words  should  be  spoken  in  a  lan¬ 
guage  which  can  be  heard  and  understood  by  the  people.1 
The  Torah  likewise  was,  and  in  the  ancient  Synagogue  is  still 
read  exclusively  in  the  Hebrew  original,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  original  reading  under  Ezra  was  accompanied  by 
a  translation  and  interpretation  in  the  Aramaic  vernacular. 
Thus  only  could  the  Torah  become  “the  heritage  of  the  whole 
congregation  of  Jacob,”  which  fact  gave  rise  to  both  the 
Aramaic  and  Greek  translations  of  the  Bible  which  carried 
the  truths  of  Judaism  to  the  wider  circle  of  the  world.  These 
plain  facts  were  ignored  through  the  centuries  to  the  detri¬ 
ment  of  the  Jewish  faith,  and  this  neglect,  in  turn,  engendered 
a  false  conception  of  Judaism,  making  it  seem  ever  more 
exclusive  and  narrow.  Instead  of  becoming  “our  wisdom 
and  understanding  before  all  the  nations,” 2  knowledge  of 
the  Torah  dwindled  to  a  possession  of  the  few,  while  the 
ceremonial  laws,  observed  by  the  many,  were  performed 
without  any  understanding  of  their  origin  or  purpose.  But 
in  the  last  century  under  the  banner  of  Reform  Judaism  many 
of  these  points  were  altered.  The  vernacular  was  introduced 
into  the  Synagogue,  so  that  the  modern  Jew  might  pray  in  the 
same  tongue  in  which  he  feels  and  thinks,  thus  turning  the 
prayers  from  mechanical  recitations  into  true  offerings  of  the 
soul,  and  bringing  the  Scriptural  readings  nearer  to  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  congregation.  Likewise  the  reintroduction 
of  the  sermon  in  the  vernacular  as  part  of  the  divine  service 
for  Sabbath  and  holy  days  became  the  vehicle  to  awaken 
religious  sentiments  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  thereby 
to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  prophets  and  Haggadists.3 

1  Ber.  13  a.  2  Deut.  IV,  6.  3  See  Zunz  :  Goltesdienstliche  V ortraege. 


472 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


17.  This  Orientalism  is  especially  marked  in  the  attitude  of 
the  older  Synagogue  to  women.  True  enough,  woman  was 
honored  as  the  mistress  of  the  home.  She  kindled  the  Sab¬ 
bath  light,  provided  for  the  joy  and  comfort  of  domestic  life, 
especially  on  the  holy  days,  observed  strictly  the  laws  of  diet 
and  purity,  and  awakened  the  spirit  of  piety  in  her  children. 
Still  she  was  excluded  from  the  regular  divine  service  in  the 
Synagogue.  She  did  not  count  as  a  member  of  the  religious 
community,  which  consisted  exclusively  of  men.  She  had 
to  sit  in  the  gallery  behind  a  trellis  during  the  service  and  could 
not  even  join  the  men  in  saying  grace  at  table.  A  few  rare 
women  were  privileged  to  study  Hebrew,  such  as  the  daughter 
of  Rashi,  but  as  a  rule  woman’s  education  was  neglected  as 
if  “she  had  no  claim  on  any  other  wisdom  than  the  distaff.”  1 
More  and  more  Judaism  lost  sight  of  its  noble  types  of  women 
in  antiquity;  it  forgot  the  Biblical  heroines  such  as  Miriam 
and  Deborah,  Hannah  and  Hulda,  and  Talmudic  ones  such 
as  Beruria  the  wife  of  Rabbi  Meir.  Such  women  as  these 
might  have  repeated  the  words:  “Hath  the  Lord  indeed 
spoken  only  through  Moses?  Hath  He  not  also  spoken 
through  us?”2  Aside  from  the  sphere  of  religion,  in  which 
woman  always  manifests  a  splendid  wealth  of  sentiment,  she 
was  held  in  subjection  by  Oriental  laws  in  both  marital  and 
social  relations,3  and  her  natural  vocation  as  religious  teacher  of 
the  children  in  the  home  failed  to  receive  full  recognition  also. 

The  first  attempt  to  liberate  the  Jewish  woman  from  the 
yoke  of  Orientalism  was  made  in  the  eleventh  century  by 
Rabbi  Gershon  ben  Jehudah  of  Mayence,  at  that  time  the 
leading  rabbi  of  Germany.  Under  the  influence  of  Occidental 
ideas  he  secured  equal  rights  for  men  and  women  in  marriage.4 
But  only  in  our  own  time  were  full  rights  accorded  her  in  the 

1  Yoma  66  b ;  comp.  R.  Eliezer’s  other  dictum,  Sota  III,  4. 

8  Num.  XII,  2.  3  See  Geiger's  Zeitschr.,  1836,  1  f.,  354;  1839,  333  f. 

4  Graetz,  H.  J.  Ill,  244  f. ;  L.  Loew :  Ges.  Sch.  Ill,  57. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  473 


Synagogue,  owing  to  the  reform  movement  in  Germany  and 
Austria.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  confirmation  of  children 
of  both  sexes,  which  was  gradually  introduced  in  many  con¬ 
servative  congregations  also,  was  the  virtual  recognition  of 
woman  as  the  equal  of  man  in  Synagogue  and  school.1  Fi¬ 
nally,  upon  the  initiative  of  Isaac  M.  Wise,  then  Rabbi  in  Al¬ 
bany,  N.  Y.,  family  pews  were  introduced  in  the  American 
Synagogue  and  woman  was  seated  beside  her  husband,  son, 
father,  and  brother  as  their  equal.  With  her  greater  emotional 
powers  she  is  able  to  lend  a  new  solemnity  and  dignity  to  the 
religious  and  educational  efforts  of  the  Synagogue,  wherever 
she  is  admitted  as  a  full  participant  in  the  service. 

18.  Another  shortcoming  of  the  Synagogue  and  of  Rabbinical 
Judaism  in  general  was  its  formalism.  Too  much  stress  was 
laid  upon  the  perfunctory  “ discharge  of  duty,”  the  outward 
performance  of  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  not  enough  upon 
the  spiritual  basis  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  form  obscured 
the  spirit,  even  though  it  never  quite  succeeded  in  throttling 
it.  This  formalism  of  the  ignorant,  but  observant  multitude 
was  censured  as  early  as  the  eleventh  century  by  Bahya  ben 
Joseph  ibn  Pakudah  in  his  “Duties  of  the  Heart,”  a  philo¬ 
sophical  work  in  which  he  emphatically  urges  the  need  of  in¬ 
wardness  for  the  Jewish  faith.2  Later  the  mystics  of  Germany 
and  Palestine,  while  strong  supporters  of  the  law,  opposed 
the  one-sidedness  of  legalism  and  intellectualism,  and  endeav¬ 
ored  to  instill  elements  of  deeper  devotion  into  the  Jewish 
soul  through  the  introduction  of  their  secret  lore,  Cabbalah, 
or  “esoteric  tradition.” 3  Their  offering,  however,  was 
anything  but  beneficial  to  the  soul  of  Judaism.  A  mysticism 
which  attempts  to  fathom  the  unfathomable  depth  of  the 
divine  accords  but  ill  with  the  teaching  of  Judaism,  which 
says :  “The  secret  things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God,  but 

1  See  Landsberg  in  J.  E.,  art.  Confirmation;  L.  Loew:  Lebensalter,  17. 

2  See  bis  Introduction.  3  Comp.  Schechter ;  Studies ,  II,  148  f.,  202  f. 


474 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


the  things  that  are  revealed  belong  unto  us  and  to  our  children 
forever,  that  we  may  do  all  the  words  of  this  law.”  1  The 
Cabbalah  was  but  the  reaction  to  the  excessive  rationalism 
of  the  Spanish-Arabic  period.  As  the  ultimate  source  of 
religion  is  not  reason  but  the  heart,  so  the  cultivation  of  the 
intellect  at  the  expense  of  the  emotions  can  be  only  harmful 
to  the  faith.  The  legalism  and  casuistry  of  the  Talmud  and 
the  Codes  appealed  too  much  to  the  intellect,  disregarding 
the  deeper  emotional  sources  of  religion  and  morality;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  mysticism  of  the  Cabbalists  overempha¬ 
sized  the  emotional  element,  and  eliminated  much  of  the  ra¬ 
tional  basis  of  Judaism.  True  religion  grasps  the  whole  of 
man  and  shows  God’s  world  as  a  harmonious  whole,  reflecting 
in  both  mind  and  heart  the  greatness  and  majesty  of  God 
on  high.  In  order  to  open  the  flood-gates  of  the  soul  and  ren¬ 
der  religion  again  the  deepest  and  strongest  force  of  life,  the 
Synagogue  must  revitalize  its  time-honored  institutions  and 
ceremonies.  Thus  only  will  they  become  real  powers  of  the 
Jewish  spirit,  testimonies  to  the  living  God,  witnessing  to  the 
truth  of  the  Biblical  words:  “For  this  commandment  which 
I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  too  hard  for  thee,  neither 
is  it  too  far  off.  It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldest  say, 
‘Who  shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven  and  bring  it  unto  us,  and 
make  us  to  hear  it,  that  we  may  do  it  ?  ’  Neither  is  it  beyond 
the  sea,  that  thou  shouldest  say,  ‘Who  shall  go  over  the  sea 
for  us  and  bring  it  unto  us,  and  make  us  to  hear  it,  that  we 
may  do  it?’  But  the  word  is  very  nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy 
mouth  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it.”  2 

19.  The  Synagogue  need  no  longer  restrict  itself  to  the 
ancient  forms  of  worship  in  its  appeal  to  the  Jewish  soul. 
It  must  point  to  the  loftiest  ideals  for  the  future  of  all  human¬ 
ity,  if  it  is  to  be  true  to  its  prophetic  spirit  of  yore.  “My 
house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  peoples,  ”  ex- 
1  Deut.  XXIX,  28.  2  Deut.  XXX,  11-14. 


THE  SYNAGOGUE  AND  ITS  INSTITUTIONS  475 


claimed  the  seer  of  the  exile.1  “Hear  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our 
God,  the  Lord  is  one”  must  be  echoed  in  all  lands  and  lan¬ 
guages,  by  all  God-seeking  minds  and  hearts,  to  realize  the 
prophetic  vision:  “And  the  Lord  shall  be  King  over  all  the 
earth ;  in  that  day  the  Lord  shall  be  One,  and  His  name  One.”  2 
Just  as  there  is  but  one  truth,  one  justice,  and  one  love,  how¬ 
ever  differently  the  various  races  and  classes  of  men  may 
conceive  them,  so  Israel  shall  uphold  God,  the  only  One,  as 
the  bond  of  unity  for  all  men,  despite  their  diversity  of  ideas 
and  cultures,  and  His  truth  will  be  the  beacon-light  for  all 
humanity.  As  the  Psalms,  prophets,  and  the  opening  chap¬ 
ters  of  the  Pentateuch  speak  a  language  appealing  to  the 
common  sense  of  mankind,  so  the  divine  worship  of  the  Syna¬ 
gogue  must  again  strike  the  deeper  chords  of  humanity,  in 
its  weal  and  woe,  its  hope  and  fear,  its  aspirations  and  ideals. 
Therefore  it  is  not  enough  that  the  institutions  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Synagogue  are  testimonies  to  the  great  past  of  Israel. 
They  must  also  become  eloquent  heralds  and  monitors  of  the 
glorious  future,  when  all  mankind  will  have  learned  the  lessons 
of  the  Jewish  festivals,  the  ideals  of  liberty,  law,  and  peace, 
the  thoughts  of  the  divine  judgment  and  the  divine  mercy. 
They  must  help  also  to  bring  about  the  time  when  the  ideal 
of  social  justice,  which  the  Mosaic  Code  holds  forth  for  the 
Israelitish  nation,  will  have  become  the  motive-power  and 
incentive  to  the  reestablishment  of  human  society  upon  new 
foundations. 

Jehudah  ha  Levi,  the  lofty  poet  of  medieval  Jewry,3  speaks 
of  Israel  as  the  “heart  of  humanity,”  because  it  has  supplied 
the  spiritual  and  moral  life-blood  of  the  civilized  world.  Israel 
provides  continually  the  rejuvenating  influence  of  society. 
Israel’s  history  is  the  history  of  the  world  in  miniature.  As 
the  Midrash  says,4  the  confession  of  God’s  unity  imposes 


n 

n 


1  Isa.  LVI,  7. 

3  Cuzari,  I,  103;  II,  12, 


2  Zech.  XIV,  9. 

4  Sifre  to  Deut.  VI,  5. 


476 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


upon  us  the  obligation  to  lead  all  God’s  children  to  love  Him 
with  heart  and  soul  and  might,  thus  working  toward  the  time 
when  “the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  knowledge  of  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.”  1  All  the  social, 
political,  and  intellectual  movements  of  our  restless,  heaven- 
storming  age,  notwithstanding  temporary  lapses  into  bar¬ 
barism  and  hatred,  point  unerringly  to  the  final  goal,  the 
unity  of  all  human  and  cosmic  life  under  the  supreme  leader¬ 
ship  of  God  on  high.  In  the  midst  of  all  these  movements 
of  the  day  stands  the  Jew,  God’s  witness  from  of  old,  yet 
vigorous  and  youthful  still,  surveying  the  experiences  of  the 
past  and  voicing  the  hope  of  the  future,  exclaiming  in  the 
words  of  his  traditional  prayers :  “Happy  are  we  ;  how  goodly 
is  our  portion !  how  pleasant  our  lot !  how  beautiful  our  in¬ 
heritance  !  ”  2  Our  faith  is  the  faith  of  the  coming  humanity ; 
our  hope  of  Zion  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  will  include  all 
the  ideals  of  mankind. 


1  Hab.  II,  14. 


2  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  8. 


CHAPTER  LIX 


The  Ethics  of  Judaism  and  the  Kingdom  of  God 

1.  The  soul  of  the  Jewish  religion  is  its  ethics.  Its  God 
is  the  Fountainhead  and  Ideal  of  morality.  At  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  summary  of  the  ethical  laws  in  the  Mosaic  Code 
stands  the  verse:  “Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I  the  Lord  your 
God  am  holy.”  1  This  provides  the  Jew  with  the  loftiest 
possible  motive  for  perfection  and  at  the  same  time  the 
greatest  incentive  to  an  ever  higher  conception  of  life  and 
life’s  purpose.  Accordingly,  the  kingdom  of  God  for  whose 
coming  the  Jew  longs  from  the  beginning  until  the  end  of 
the  year,2  does  not  rest  in  a  world  beyond  the  grave,  but 
(in  consonance  with  the  ideal  of  Israel’s  sages  and  prophets) 
in  a  complete  moral  order  on  earth,  the  reign  of  truth,  right¬ 
eousness  and  holiness  among  all  men  and  nations.  Jewish 
ethics,  then,  derives  its  sanction  from  God,  the  Author  and 
Master  of  life,  and  sees  its  purpose  in  the  hallowing  of  all 
life,  individual  and  social.  Its  motive  is  the  splendid  con¬ 
ception  that  man,  with  his  finite  ends,  is  linked  to  the  infinite 
God  with  His  infinite  ends ;  or,  as  the  rabbis  express  it,  “Man 
is  a  co-worker  with  God  in  the  work  of  creation.”  3 

2.  Both  the  term  ethics  (from  the  Greek  ethos )  and  moral¬ 
ity  (from  the  Latin  mores )  are  derived  from  custom  or  habit. 
In  distinction  to  this,  the  Hebrew  Scripture  points  to  God’s 
will  as  perceived  in  the  human  conscience  as  the  source 
of  all  morality.  Those  ethical  systems  which  dispense  with 

1  Lev.  XIX,  2 ;  comp,  on  the  whole  E.  G.  Hirsch  in  J.  E.,  art.  Ethics. 

2  See  Alenu  in  Singer’s  Prayerb.,  67  f. ;  Union  Prayerbook,  I,  48,  104  f. 

3  Shab.  1 19  b. 


477 


478 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


religion  fail  to  take  due  cognizance  of  the  voice  of  duty  which 
says  to  each  man:  “Thou  shalt”  or  “Thou  shalt  not!” 
Duty  distinguishes  man  from  all  other  creatures.  However 
low  man  may  be  in  the  scale  of  freedom,  he  is  moved  to 
action  by  an  impulse  from  within,  not  by  a  compulsion  from 
without.  Of  course,  morality  must  travel  a  long  road  from 
the  primitive  code,  which  does  not  extend  beyond  the  near 
kinsmen,  to  the  ideal  of  civilized  man  which  encompasses 
the  world.  Still  man’s  steps  are  always  directed  by  some  rule 
of  duty.  The  voice  of  conscience,  heard  clearly  or  dimly, 
is  not,  as  is  so  often  asserted,  the  product,  but  the  original 
guiding  factor  of  human  society.  The  divine  inner  power  of 
morality  has  made  man,  not  man  morality.  Morality  and 
religion,  inseparably  united  in  the  Decalogue  of  Sinai,  will 
attain  their  perfection  together  in  the  kingdom  of  God  upon 
the  Zion  heights  of  humanity. 

3.  Ethical  elements,  greater  or  smaller,  enter  into  all 
religions  and  codes  of  law  of  the  various  nations.  Ancient 
Egypt,  Persia  and  India  even  connected  ethical  principle 
and  the  future  of  the  soul  so  closely,  that  certain  ethical  laws 
were  to  determine  one’s  fate  in  heaven  or  hell.  This  led  to 
the  idea  that  this  life  is  but  the  preparatory  stage  to  the  great 
hereafter.  But  antiquity  also  witnessed  more  or  less  success¬ 
ful  attempts  to  emancipate  ethics  from  religion.  When  the 
old  beliefs  no  longer  satisfied  the  thinking  mind  and  no  longer 
kept  men  from  corruption,  various  philosophers  attempted 
to  provide  general  principles  of  morality  as  substitutes  for 
the  departed  deities.  Confucius  built  up  in  China  a  system 
of  common-sense  ethics  based  upon  the  communal  life,  but 
without  any  religious  ideals ;  this  satisfied  the  commonplace 
attitude  of  that  country,  but  could  not  pass  beyond  the  con¬ 
fines  of  the  far  East.  A  semi-religious  ascetic  system  was 
offered  at  about  the  same  time  by  Gautama  Buddha  of 
India,  a  prince  garbed  as  a  mendicant  friar,  who  preached 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


479 


the  gospel  of  love  and  charity  for  all  fellow  creatures.  His 
leading  maxims  were  blind  resignation  and  self-effacement  in 
the  presence  of  the  ills,  suffering  and  death  which  rule  the 
entire  domain  of  life.  All  existence  was  evil  to  him,  with 
its  pleasure,  passion  and  desire,  its  thought  and  feeling;  his 
aim  was  a  state  of  apathy  and  listlessness,  Nirvana;  while 
sympathy  and  compassion  for  fellow  creatures  were  to  offer 
some  relief  to  a  life  of  delusion  and  despair.  The  Hindu 
conception  of  the  unbearable  woe  of  the  world  corresponded 
more  or  less  with  the  hot  climate,  which  renders  the  people 
indolent  and  apathetic.  In  striking  contrast  to  this  was  the 
vigorous  manhood  of  the  ethical  systems  developed  on  the 
healthy  soil  of  Greece,  under  the  azure  canopy  of  a  sky  that 
fills  the  soul  with  beauty  and  joy.  Life  should  be  valued  for 
the  happiness  it  offers  to  the  individual  or  to  society.  The 
good  should  be  loved  for  its  beauty,  the  just  admired  for  its 
nobility.  Greek  ethics  was  thus  both  aristocratic  and  utili¬ 
tarian  ;  it  took  no  heed  of  the  toiling  slave,  the  suffering  poor, 
or  the  unprotected  stranger.  Both  the  Buddhist  and  the 
Hellenic  systems  lacked  the  energizing  force  and  motive  of 
the  highest  purpose  of  life,  because  both  have  left  out  of  their 
purview  the  great  Ruler  who  summons  man  to  his  duty,  say¬ 
ing:  “I  am  the  Lord  thy  God;  thou  shalt  and  thou  shalt 
not !” 

4.  Between  the  two  extremes,  the  Hellenic  self-expansion 
and  the  Buddhist  self-extinction,  Jewish  ethics  labors  for 
self-elevation  under  the  uplifting  power  of  a  holy  God.  The 
term  which  Scripture  uses  for  moral  conduct  is,  very  signifi¬ 
cantly,  “to  walk  in  the  ways  of  God.”  The  rabbis  explain 
this  as  follows :  “As  God  is  merciful  and  gracious,  so  be  thou 
merciful  and  gracious.  As  God  is  called  righteous,  so  be 
thou  righteous.  As  God  is  holy,  so  do  thou  strive  to  be 
holy.”1  Another  of  their  maxims  is:  “How  can  mortal 

1  Deut.  XI,  22 ;  Sifre  Deut.  49. 


480 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


man  walk  after  God,  who  is  an  all-consuming  fire?  What 
Scripture  means  is  that  man  should  emulate  God.  As  He 
clothes  the  naked,  nurses  the  sick,  comforts  the  sorrowing, 
and  buries  the  dead,  so  should  man.”  1  In  other  words, 
human  life  must  take  its  pattern  from  the  divine  goodness 
and  holiness. 

5.  Obviously,  Jewish  ethics  had  to  go  through  the  same 
long  process  of  development  as  the  Jewish  religion  itself. 
A  very  high  stage  is  represented  by  that  disinterested  good¬ 
ness  taught  by  Antigonus  of  Soko  in  the  second  pre-Christian 
century  and  by  ben  Azzai  in  the  second  century  of  the  present 
era,  which  no  longer  anticipates  reward  or  punishment,  but 
does  good  for  its  own  sake  and  shuns  evil  because  it  is  evil.2 
As  long  as  the  law  tolerated  slavery,  polygamy,  and  blood 
vengeance,  and  man’s  personality  was  not  recognized  on 
principle  as  being  made  in  the  image  of  God,  the  practical 
morality  of  the  Hebrews  could  not  rise  above  that  of  other 
nations,  except  in  so  far  as  the  shepherd’s  compassion  for 
the  beast  occasioned  sympathy  also  for  the  fellow-man. 
After  all,  Jewish  ethics  became  the  ethics  of  humanity 
because  of  the  God-conception  of  the  prophets,  —  the  right¬ 
eous,  merciful,  and  holy  God,  the  God  “who  executeth  the 
judgment  of  the  fatherless  and  the  widow,  and  loveth  the 
stranger  in  giving  him  food  and  raiment.”  3  The  conception 
of  Jewish  ethics  as  human  ethics  is  voiced  in  the  familiar 
verse:  “It  hath  been  told  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good  and 
what  the  Lord  doth  require  of  thee:  only  to  do  justly  and 
to  love  mercy  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God.”  4  The 
all-ruling  and  all-seeing  God  of  the  Psalmist  made  men  feel 
that  only  such  a  one  can  stand  in  His  holy  place  “who  hath 

1  Deut.  XIII,  5;  Sota  14  a;  see  Schechter:  Aspects,  200-203. 

2  Aboth.  I,  3 ;  IV,  2 ;  E.  G.  Hirsch  in  J.  E.,  art  Ethics.  See  Toy :  Judaism 
and  Christianity ,  p.  260. 

3  Deut.  X,  19. 


4  Micah  VI,  8. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


481 


clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart,  who  hath  not  lifted  up  his  soul 
unto  falsehood,  nor  sworn  deceitfully.”  1  After  law-giver, 
prophet,  and  psalmist  came  the  wise,  who  gave  ethics  a  more 
practical  and  popular  character  in  the  wisdom  literature, 
and  then  came  the  Hasidim  or  Essenes,  who,  while  seeking 
the  highest  piety  or  saintliness  as  life’s  aim,  deepened  and 
spiritualized  their  ethical  ideals.  Some  of  these  considered 
the  essential  principles  of  morality  to  be  love  of  God  and  of 
the  fellow-man ; 2  while  rabbinical  ethics  in  general  laid  great 
stress  on  motive  as  determining  the  value  of  the  deed.  The 
words,  “Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,”  so  often  repeated 
in  the  law,  are  taken  to  mean :  Fear  Him  who  looks  into  the 
heart,  judging  motives  and  intentions.3 

6.  As  the  Mosaic  Code  presented  the  ceremonial  and  moral 
laws  together  as  divine,  so  the  rabbinical  schools  treated 
them  all  as  divine  commandments  without  any  distinction. 
Hence  the  Mishnah  and  the  Talmud  fail  to  give  ethics  the 
prominent  place  it  occupies  in  the  prophetic  and  wisdom 
literature  of  the  Bible  and  did  not  even  make  an  attempt  to 
formulate  a  system  of  ethics.  The  ethical  rules  in  the  “Say¬ 
ings  of  the  Fathers”  and  similar  later  collections  make  no 
pretentions  to  being  general  or  systematic.  The  ethical 
teachings  became  conspicuous  only  through  contact  with  the 
Hellenic  world  in  the  propaganda  literature,  with  its  aim 
to  win  the  Gentile  world  to  Judaism.  Thus  at  an  early 
period  handbooks  on  ethics  were  written  and  circulated 
in  the  Greek  language,  some  of  which  were  afterward  appro¬ 
priated  by  the  Christian  Church.  This  entire  movement  is 
summed  up  in  the  well-known  answer  of  Hillel  to  the  heathen 
who  desired  to  join  the  Jewish  faith:  “What  is  hateful  to 

1  Ps.  XXIV,  3-4. 

2 See  J.  E.,  art.  Essenes,  Hasidim  and  Test.  Twelve  Patriarchs:  Iss.  V,  2; 
VII,  6;  Dan.  V,  3. 

3  Lev.  XIX,  14,  32 ;  Sifra  ad  loc.  B.  M.  58  b. 


482 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


thee,  do  thou  not  unto  thy  fellow  man ;  this  is  the  law,  and 
all  the  rest  is  merely  commentary.”  1 

On  the  whole,  rabbinical  Judaism  elaborated  no  ethical 
system  before  the  Middle  Ages.  Then,  under  Mohammedan 
influence,  the  Aristotelian  and  Neo-Platonic  philosophies  in 
vogue  gave  rise  to  certain  ethical  works  more  or  less  in  ac¬ 
cord  with  their  philosophic  or  mystic  prototypes.  In  addi¬ 
tion,  ethical  treatises  were  often  written  in  the  form  of  wills 
and  of  popular  admonitions,  which  were  sometimes  broad 
and  human,  at  other  times  stern  and  ascetic.  One  thought, 
however,  prevailed  through  the  ages :  as  life  emanates  from 
the  God  of  holiness,  so  it  must  ever  serve  His  holy  purposes 
and  benefit  all  His  earthly  children.  “  All  the  laws  given 
by  God  to  Israel  have  only  the  purification  and  ennobling  of 
the  life  of  men  for  their  object,”  say  the  rabbis.2 

7.  Perhaps  the  best  summary  of  Jewish  ethics  was  pre¬ 
sented  by  Hillel  in  the  famous  three  words:  “If  I  am  not 
for  myself,  who  will  be  for  me  ?  But  if  I  am  for  myself  alone, 
what  am  I?  And  if  not  now,  when  then?  ”3  We  find  here 
three  spheres  of  duty :  toward  one’s  self,  toward  others,  and 
toward  the  life  before  us.  In  contrast  to  purely  altruistic 
or  socialistic  ethics,  Jewish  morality  accentuated  the  value 
of  the  individual  even  apart  from  the  social  organism.  Man 
is  a  child  of  God,  a  self-conscious  personality,  who  is  to  un¬ 
fold  and  improve  the  powers  implanted  by  his  divine  Maker, 
in  both  body  and  soul,  laboring  in  this  way  toward  the  pur¬ 
pose  for  which  he  was  created.  Man  was  created  single, 
says  one  of  the  sages  in  the  Mishnah,4  that  he  might  know 
that  he  forms  a  world  for  himself,  and  the  whole  creation 
must  aid  him  in  unfolding  the  divine  image  within  himself. 
Accordingly,  self-preservation,  self-improvement  and  self- 

1  Shab.  31a;  comp.  J.  E.,  art.  Didache  and  Klein,  1.  c. 

2Tanh.  Shemini,  ed.  Buber,  §  12;  comp.Lauterbach,  Ethics  of  Halakah,  p.  12. 

3  Aboth.  I,  14.  4  Sanh.  IVj  5> 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


483 


perfection  are  duties  of  every  man.  This  implies  first  the 
care  for  the  human  body  as  the  temple  which  enshrines  the 
divine  spirit.  In  the  eyes  of  Judaism,  to  neglect  or  enfeeble 
the  body,  the  instrument  of  the  soul,  is  altogether  sinful. 
As  the  Sabbath  law  demands  physical  rest  and  recreation 
after  the  week’s  work,  so  the  Jewish  religion  in  general  trains 
men  to  enjoy  the  gifts  of  God;  and  the  rabbis  declare  that 
their  rejection  (except  for  disciplinary  reasons)  is  ingratitude 
for  which  man  must  give  an  account  at  the  last  Judgment 
Day.1  The  Pharisean  teacher  who  opposed  the  Essenic  cus¬ 
tom  of  fasting  and  declared  it  sinful,  unless  it  be  for  special 
purposes,  would  have  deprecated  even  more  strongly  the 
ascetic  Christian  or  Hindoo  saint  who  castigated  his  body 
as  the  seat  of  sin.2  As  Hillel  remarked:  “See  what  care  is 
bestowed  upon  the  statue  of  the  emperor  to  keep  it  clean  and 
bright ;  ought  we  not,  likewise,  keep  God’s  image,  our  body, 
clean  and  free  from  every  blemish?”  3 

In  regard  to  our  moral  and  spiritual  selves  the  rabbinical 
maxim  is  :  “Beautify  thyself  first,  and  then  beautify  others.”  4 
Only  as  we  first  ennoble  ourselves  can  we  then  contribute  to 
the  elevation  of  the  world  about  us.  Our  industry  promotes 
the  welfare  of  the  community  as  well  as  of  ourselves;  our 
idleness  harms  others  as  well  as  ourselves.5  Upon  self-respect 
rest  our  honor  and  our  character.  Virtue  also  is  the  result 
of  self-control  and  self-conquest.6  “There  shall  be  no  strange 
God  in  thee.”  This  Psalm  verse  is  taken  by  the  rabbis  to 
mean  that  no  anger  and  passion  nor  any  evil  desire  or 
overbearing  pride  shall  obtain  their  mastery  over  thee.7 
Man  asserts  himself  in  braving  temptation  and  trial,  in  over¬ 
coming  sin  and  grief.  Greater  still  is  the  hero  who,  in  com- 

1  Yer.  Kid.  IV,  66  d.  2  Taan.  22  b;  Ned.  10  a. 

3  Lev.  R.  XXXIV,  3,  ref.  to  Prov.  XI,  17.  4  Sanh.  18  a,  19  a. 

5  Keth.  V,  5. 

6  Prov.  XVI,  32;  Shab.  105  b;  Ned.  22  b;  Sota  4  b;  Ber.  43  b. 

2  Ps.  LXXXI,  10. 


484 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


plete  self-mastery,  can  sacrifice  himself  in  a  great  cause. 
Martyrdom  for  the  sake  of  God,  which  the  rabbis  call  sancti¬ 
fication  of  the  name  of  God,1  is  really  the  assertion  of  the 
divine  life  in  the  midst  of  death.  But  desertion  of  life  from 
selfish  motives  through  suicide  is  all  the  more  despicable. 
He  who  sells  his  human  birthright  to  escape  pain  or  disgrace, 
though  greatly  to  be  pitied,  has  forfeited  his  claim  and  his 
share  in  the  world  to  come.2 

Not  only  our  life  is  to  be  maintained  amid  all  trials  as  a 
sacred  trust,  but  also  our  rights,  our  freedom,  and  our  indi¬ 
viduality,  for  we  must  not  allow  our  personality  to  become 
the  slave  or  tool  of  others.  Job,  who  battled  for  his  own  con¬ 
victions  against  the  false  assumption  of  his  friends,  was  at 
last  praised  and  rewarded  by  God.3  The  Biblical  verse : 
“For  they  are  My  servants  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  slaves,”  is  explained 
by  the  rabbis :  “My  servants,  but  not  servants  to  servants,” 
and  is  thus  applicable  to  spiritual  slavery  as  well.4 

8.  Therefore  the  Jewish  conception  of  duty  to  our  fellow- 
men  is  by  no  means  comprised  in  love  or  benevolence.  Long 
before  Hillel,  other  Jewish  sages  gave  the  so-called  Golden 
Rule:  “Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  a  negative  form: 
“What  is  hateful  to  thee  do  not  do  unto  thy  fellow  men.”  5 
Taken  in  the  positive  form,  the  command  cannot  be  literally 
carried  out.  We  cannot  love  the  stranger  as  we  love  our¬ 
selves  or  our  kin ;  still  less  can  we  love  our  enemy,  as  is  de¬ 
manded  by  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  According  to  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures 6  we  can  and  should  treat  our  enemy 

1  See  above,  chapter  L,  par.  6. 

2  Semakotll;  R.  Eleazar  in  B.  K.  91  b  with  reference  to  Gen.  IX,  5.  Prof. 
Lauterbach  referred  me  to  Shebet  Mussar,  XX,  obviously  a  quotation  from 
some  lost  Midrash.” 

8  Job  XLII,  7.  4  Lev.  XXV,  42,  55 ;  Tos.  B.  K.  VII,  5 ;  Kid.  22  d. 

6  Targ.  to  Lev.  XIX,  18;  Tobit  IV,  15  ;  Philo  II,  236. 

6  Ex.  XXIII,  4-5;  Prov.  XXIV,  17;  XXV,  21. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


485 

magnanimously  and  forgive  him,  but  we  cannot  truly  love 
him,  unless  he  turns  from  an  enemy  to  a  friend.  The  real 
meaning  given  by  the  rabbis  to  the  command,  “Love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself ”  is:  “Put  thyself  in  his  place  and  act 
accordingly.  As  thou  dost  not  desire  to  be  robbed  of  thy 
property  or  good  name  or  to  be  injured  or  insulted,  so  do  not 
these  things  unto  thy  fellow  man.”  1  They  then  take  the 
closing  words,  “I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,”  as  an  oath  by  God : 
“I  am  the  Lord,  the  Creator  of  thy  fellow  man  as  well  as  of 
thee ;  therefore,  if  thou  showest  love  to  him,  I  shall  surely 
reward  thee,  and  if  not,  I  am  the  Judge  ready  to  punish 
thee.”  2  Love  of  all  fellow-men  is,  in  fact,  taught  by  both 
Hillel 3  and  Philo.4  Love  and  helpful  sympathy  are  implied 
also  by  the  verse  from  Deuteronomy  :  “He  (the  Lord)  loveth 
the  stranger  in  giving  him  bread  and  raiment.  Love  ye 
therefore  the  stranger.”  5  All  members  of  the  human  house¬ 
hold  are  dependent  on  each  other  for  kindness  and  good  will, 
whether  we  are  rich  or  poor,  high  or  lowly,  in  life  or  in  death ; 
so  do  we  owe  love  and  kindness  to  all  men  alike. 

9.  However,  love  as  a  principle  of  action  is  not  sufficiently 
firm  to  fashion  human  conduct  or  rule  society.  It  is  too 
much  swayed  by  impulse  and  emotion  and  is  often  too  par¬ 
tial.  Love  without  justice  leads  to  abuse  and  wrong,  as 
we  see  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  which  began  with  the 
principle  of  love,  but  often  failed  to  heed  the  admonitions  of 
justice.  Therefore  justice  is  the  all-inclusive  principle  of  hu¬ 
man  conduct  in  the  eyes  of  Judaism.  Justice  is  impartial  by 
its  very  nature.  It  must  right  every  wrong  and  vindicate  the 
cause  of  the  oppressed.  “When  Thy  judgments  are  in  the 
earth,  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  will  learn  righteousness,” 
said  the  prophet,6  describing  the  just  man  as  he  “that  walk- 

2  Eodem,  64. 

4  Philo  II,  284  f. 

6  Isa.  XXVI,  9. 


1  Ab.  d.  R.  N.,  ed.  Schechter,  53,  60. 
3  Aboth.  I,  12. 

6  Deut.  X,  18-19. 


486 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


eth  righteously  and  speaketh  uprightly,  that  despiseth  the 
gain  of  oppressions,  that  shaketh  his  hands  from  holding  of 
bribes,  that  stoppeth  his  ear  from  hearing  of  blood,  and 
shutteth  his  eyes  from  looking  on  evil.”  1  Justice  is  the  requi¬ 
site  not  only  in  action,  but  also  in  disposition,2  implying 
honesty  in  intention  as  in  deed,  uprightness  in  speech  and 
mien,  perfect  rectitude,  neither  taking  advantage  of  igno¬ 
rance  nor  abusing  confidence.3  It  is  sinful  to  acquire  wealth 
by  betting  or  gambling,4  or  by  cornering  food-supplies  to 
raise  the  market  price.5  The  rabbis  derive  from  Scripture 
the  thought  that,  just  as  “your  balances  and  weights,  your 
ephah  and  hin”  must  be  just,  so  should  your  yea  and  nay.6 
The  verse,  “Justice,  justice  shalt  thou  follow,”  7  is  explained 
thus  in  a  Midrash  which  is  quoted  by  Bahya  ben  Asher  of 
the  thirteenth  century:  “Justice,  whether  to  your  profit  or 
loss,  whether  in  word  or  in  action,  whether  to  Jew  or  non- 
Jew.”  8  This  category  of  justice  covers  also  regard  for  the 
honor  of  our  fellow-men,  lest  we  harm  it  by  the  tongue  of  the 
back-biter,9  by  the  ear  that  listens  to  calumny,10  or  by  sus¬ 
picion  cast  upon  the  innocent.11  “God  in  His  law  takes 
especial  care  of  the  honor  of  our  fellow-men,”  say  the  rabbis, 
and  “  he  who  publicly  puts  his  fellow  man  to  shame  forfeits 
his  share  in  the  world  to  come.”  12 

io.  But  the  Jewish  conception  of  justice  is  broader  than 
mere  abstention  from  hurting  our  fellow-men.  Justice  is  a 
positive  conception.  Righteousness  ( Zedakah )  includes  also 
charity  and  philanthropy.  It  asserts  the  claim  of  the  poor 
upon  the  rich,  of  the  helpless  upon  him  who  possesses  the 

1  Isa.  XXXIII,  15.  2  Sifra  Behar  IV;  B.  M.  58  b. 

3  Tos.  B.  K.  VII,  8;  B.  M.  Ill,  27;  B.  B.  88  a-90  b;  Makk.  24  a. 

4  Sanh.  24  b.  B  B.  B.  90  b.  6  Lev.  XIX,  36;  B.  M.  49  a. 

7  Deut.  XVI,  20.  8  Kad  ha  Kemah,  s.  v.  Gezelah.  9  Ps.  XV,  3. 

10  Pes.  1 18  a.  11  Shab.  97  a;  Yoma  19  b. 

12  Mek.  Mishpatim  82;  B.  K.  79  b;  B.  M.  58  b-59  a;  Lauterbach  1.  c. 
20-21. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


487 


means  to  help.  “He  who  prevents  the  poor  from  reaping 
the  corners  of  the  field  or  the  gleanings  of  the  harvest,  or  in 
any  way  withholds  that  which  has  been  assigned  them  by 
the  law  of  Moses,  is  a  robber, ”  says  the  Mishnah,  “for  it  is 
written  :  ‘  Remove  not  the  old  landmark,  and  enter  not  into 
the  field  of  the  fatherless.’”1  Jewish  ethics  holds  that 
charity  is  not  a  gift  of  condescending  love,  but  a  duty.  It 
is  incumbent  upon  the  fortunate  to  rescue  the  unfortunate, 
since  all  that  we  possess  is  only  lent  to  us  by  God,  the  Owner 
of  the  world,  with  the  charge  that  we  provide  for  the  needy 
who  are  under  His  special  protection.  Those  who  refuse  to 
give  the  poor  their  share  abuse  the  divine  trust.  “If  thou 
lendest  money  to  My  people,  to  the  poor  with  thee,”  2  says 
Scripture,  and  the  rabbis  comment  on  this  to  the  effect  that 
“the  poor  are  called  God’s  people;  do  not  forget  that  the 
turn  of  fortune  which  made  you  rich  and  them  poor  may 
turn,  and  that  you  may  then  be  in  need.”  3  Nor  is  it  sufficient 
merely  to  give  to  him  who  is  poor ;  we  are  bidden  to  uphold 
him  when  his  powers  fail.4 

This  is  the  very  principle  of  ethics  of  the  Mosaic  law,  the 
principle  for  which  the  great  prophets  fought  with  all  the 
vigor  and  vehemence  of  the  divine  spirit  —  social  justice. 
The  cry :  “Woe  unto  them  that  join  house  to  house,  that  lay 
field  to  field,  till  there  be  no  room,”  5  the  condemnation  of 
those  “that  swallow  the  needy  and  destroy  the  poor  of  the 
land,”  6  the  curse  hurled  at  him  who  withholdeth  corn,7 
laid  the  foundations  of  a  higher  justice,  which  is  not  satis¬ 
fied  with  mitigating  the  misery  of  the  unfortunate  by  acts  of 
charity,  but  insists  on  a  readjustment  of  the  social  conditions 
which  create  poverty.  This  spirit  created  the  poor  laws  of 
the  Mosaic  Code,  which  were  partially  adopted  by  both 

1  Peah  V,  6;  Prov.  XXIII,  10.  2  Ex.  XXIII,  24. 

3  Tanh.  Mishpatim,  ed.  Buber,  8.  4  Lev.  XXV,  35  ;  Sifra  ad  loc. 

6  Isa.  V,  8.  6  Amos  VIII,  4.  7  Prov.  XI,  26. 


488 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


Christians  and  Mohammedans.  It  dictated  the  Mosaic 
institutions  of  the  seventh  year  of  release  and  the  Jubilee 
year  for  the  restoration  of  fields  and  houses,  to  prevent  the 
tyranny  of  wealth  from  becoming  a  permanent  source  of 
oppression.  While  these  were  scarcely  ever  put  into  prac¬ 
tice,  they  remained  as  a  protest  and  an  appeal.  Their  aim 
and  permanent  influence  tended  toward  relations  between 
the  upper  and  lower  classes,  which  would  insure  the  latter 
some  degree  of  independence  and  dignity.  In  fact,  the 
foundations  laid  by  the  Hebrew  Scripture  underlie  all  our 
great  modern  efforts  to  turn  the  forces  of  charity  so  as  to  check 
the  sources  of  evil  in  our  social  organism.  Modern  phi¬ 
lanthropy,  taking  its  clue  from  the  old  Hebrew  ideal,  aims  not 
to  alleviate  but  to  cure,  and  to  stimulate  the  natural  good  in 
society,  material,  moral  and  intellectual,  that  it  may  over¬ 
come  the  evil.  We  are  recognizing  more  and  more  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  mutual  responsibility  and  interdependence  of  men 
and  classes.  Yet  this  very  principle,  modern  as  it  seems, 
was  recognized  by  the  Jewish  sages,  as  we  see  in  the  remark¬ 
able  passage  where  the  rabbis  comment  on  the  law  concerning 
the  case  of  a  slain  body  found  in  the  field,  with  the  murderer 
unknown.  The  Bible  commands  that  in  such  a  case  the 
elders  of  the  city  should  kill  a  heifer,  wash  their  hands  over 
it,  and  say:  “ Our  hands  have  not  shed  this  blood,  neither 
have  our  eyes  seen  it.”1  The  rabbis  then  ask:  “How 
could  the  elders  of  a  city  ever  be  suspected  of  the  crime  of 
murder?”  and  their  reply  is:  “Even  if  they  only  failed  to 
provide  the  poor  in  their  charge  with  the  necessary  food,  and 
he  became  a  highway  robber  and  murderer;  or  if  they  left 
him  without  the  necessary  protection,  and  he  fell  a  victim  to 
murderers,  they  are  held  responsible  for  the  crime  before  the 
higher  court  of  God.”  2  That  is,  according  to  our  station  we 
are  all  responsible  for  the  social  conditions  which  create 
1  Deut.  XXI,  i-8.  2  Sifre  ad  loc. ;  Sota  IX,  7. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


489 


poverty  and  crime,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  establish  such  rela¬ 
tions  between  the  individual  and  the  community  as  will 
remove  the  causes  of  all  the  evils  of  society. 

1 1 .  This,  in  a  way,  anticipates  the  third  maxim  of  Hillel : 
“If  not  now,  when  then?”  Judaism  cannot  accept  the  New 
Testament  spirit  of  other- worldliness,  which  prompted  the 
teaching:  “Take  no  thought  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat 
or  what  ye  shall  drink,  nor  yet  for  your  body  what  ye  shall 
put  on,”  or  “Resist  not  evil.”1  Such  a  view  disregards 
the  values  and  duties  of  domestic,  civic,  and  industrial  life, 
and  creates  an  inseparable  gulf  between  sacred  and  profane, 
between  religion  and  culture.  In  contrast  to  this,  Jewish 
ethics  sets  the  highest  value  upon  all  things  that  make  man 
more  of  a  human  being  and  increase  his  power  of  doing  good. 
To  Judaism  marriage  and  home  life  are  regarded  as  the  normal 
conditions  of  human  welfare  and  sane  morality,  while  celibacy 
is  considered  abnormal.2  Labor  establishes  the  dignity  of 
man,3  while  wealth  is  a  source  of  blessing,  a  stewardship  in  the 
service  of  society.4  In  opposition  to  the  practice  fostered  by 
the  Essenes  and  afterwards  adopted  by  the  early  Church,  of 
devoting  one’s  whole  fortune  to  charity,  the  rabbis  decreed 
that  one  should  not  give  over  one  fifth  of  one’s  possessions.5 
As  has  well  been  said,  Judaism  teaches  a  “robust  morality.”  6 
It  regards  life  as  a  continual  battle  for  God  and  right  against 
every  sort  of  injustice,7  for  truth  against  every  kind  of  false¬ 
hood.  At  the  same  time  it  fosters  also  the  gentler  virtues  of 
meekness,8  kindness  to  animals,9  peaceableness  and  modesty.10 

1  Matt.  VI,  25-28,  V,  39 ;  comp.  Cor.  VI,  6-7. 

2  Yeb.  62  a,  63  a.  3  Prov.  XXII,  29 ;  Ned.  49  b. 

4  Ber.  8  a,  ref.  to  Ps.  CXXVIII,  2.  6  Keth.  50  a. 

6  Morris  Joseph  in  Religious  Systems  of  the  World,  1892,  p.  701. 

7  Deut.  I,  17 ;  see  Schmiedl :  D.  Lehre  v.  Kampf  urn's  Recht,  1875. 

3  Ps.  XXXVII,  11 ;  Shab.  88  b. 

9  Ex.  XXIII,  5 ;  Deut.  XXV,  4 ;  Prov.  XII,  10 ;  Git.  62  a. 

10  Aboth.  I,  12;  IV,  4,  12;  Taan.  20  b. 


490 


JEWISH  THEOLOGY 


12.  Jewish  ethics  excels  all  other  ethical  systems,  especially 
in  its  insistence  on  purity  and  holiness.  Not  only  is  any 
unchaste  look,  thought,  or  act  condemned,  exactly  as  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,1  as  approaching  adultery,2  but  all 
profanity  of  act  or  speech  is  declared  to  be  an  unpardonable 
offense  against  the  majesty  of  God.3  Modesty  in  demeanor 
and  dress  was  both  preached  and  practiced  by  the  Jews 
throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  while  in  non- Jewish  circles 
coarseness  and  lewdness  prevailed  among  high  and  low,  in 
minstrel  song  and  monastic  life.  “The  Lord  thy  God  walk- 
eth  in  the  midst  of  thy  camp  .  .  .  therefore  shall  thy  camp 
be  holy,  that  He  see  no  unseemly  thing  in  thee,  and  turn  away 
from  thee.” 4  These  Biblical  words  created  among  the 
Essenes  (the  Zenuirn )  and  later  among  the  entire  Jewish 
people  a  spirit  of  chastity  and  modesty  which  made  the 
Jewish  home  of  old  a  model  of  purity  and  sanctity.  The 
great  problem  for  modern  Israel,  amid  our  present  allurements 
of  luxury  and  pleasure,  is  to  restore  the  home  to  its  pristine 
glory  as  a  sanctuary  of  God,  a  training  school  for  virtue,  so 
that  its  influence  may  extend  over  the  whole  of  life. 

13.  Thus  Jewish  ethics  derives  its  sanction  from  the  idea 
of  a  God  of  holiness.  But  it  never  made  life  austere,  depriv¬ 
ing  it  of  joy,  or  begrudging  man  his  cheerfulness  and  laughter. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Sabbath  and  many  of  the  holy  days  are 
seasons  of  joy,  for  gladness  should  bring  the  spirit  of  God 
near  to  man.5  Moreover,  the  Talmud  holds  that  we  should 
encourage  every  means  of  promoting  cheer  among  men.  This 
is  illustrated  by  one  of  the  popular  legends  of  the  prophet 
Elijah,  who  told  the  saintly  Rabbi  Beroka,  who  prided  him- 

1  Matt.  V,  27-30. 

2  Job  XXXI,  1 ;  Pes.  R.  XXIV;  Lev.  R.  XXIII,  12 ;  Rer.  12  b;  Nid.  13  a. 

3  Shab.  33  a,  referring  to  Isa.  IX,  17;  Ben  Sira  XXIII,  13;  Test.  Twelve 

Patriarchs,  passim.  4  Deut.  XXIII,  14. 

5  Deut.  XVI,  11 ;  14  f. ;  Shab.  118  a;  Pes.  R.  XXIII;  Meg.  16  b;  Shab. 
30  b;  Ber.  31a;  comp.  M.  Lazarus,  1.  c.,  254-261. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM 


491 


self  upon  his  austerity,  that  his  companions  in  Paradise  were 
to  be  two  jesters,  because  they  cheered  the  depressed  and 
increased  the  joy  in  the  world.1 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Jewish  ideal  of  holiness  is  all- 
inclusive.  It  aims  to  hallow  every  pursuit  and  endeavor, 
all  social  relations  and  activities,  insisting  only  on  a  pure 
motive  and  disinterested  service.  As  the  Ruler  of  life  is  the 
source  of  all  morality,  so  all  of  life  should  be  made  holy  with 
duty.  Man  becomes  a  child  of  God  through  his  responsi¬ 
bility,  instead  of  remaining  a  mere  product  of  the  social  forces 
about  him  or  of  claiming  self-sufficient  sovereignty  and  refus¬ 
ing  to  acknowledge  a  higher  Will.  Jewish  ethics  is  autono¬ 
mous,  because  it  insists  on  the  divine  spirit  in  man.2  As 
we  follow  the  divine  Pattern  of  holiness,  all  that  we  have  and 
are,  body  and  soul,  weal  and  woe,  wealth  and  want,  pain  and 
pleasure,  life  and  death,  become  stepping-stones  on  the  road 
to  holiness  and  godliness.  Life  is  like  a  ladder  on  which  man 
can  rise  from  round  to  round,  to  come  ever  nearer  to  God  on 
high  who  beckons  him  toward  ever  higher  ideals  and  achieve¬ 
ments.  Man  and  humanity  are  thus  given  the  potentiality 
of  infinite  progress  in  every  direction.  Science  and  art, 
industry  and  commerce,  literature  and  law,  every  pursuit  of 
man  comes  within  the  scope  of  religion  and  ethics.  For 
God’s  kingdom  of  truth,  righteousness  and  peace,  as  beheld 
by  Israel’s  seers  of  old,  will  be  fully  established  on  earth  only 
when  all  the  forces  of  material,  intellectual,  and  social  life 
have  been  unfolded,  when  all  the  prophetic  ideals,  the  visions 
and  aspirations  of  all  the  seers  of  humanity  have  been  realized, 
and  the  Zion  heights  of  human  perfection  have  at  last  been 
attained.  “The  wise  have  no  rest,  neither  in  this  world  nor 
in  the  world  to  come,  for  it  is  said :  1  they  go  from  strength 
to  strength,  [until]  they  appear  before  God  on  Zion.’  ” 3 

1  Taan.  22  a.  2  See  Lazarus,  1.  c.,  99. 

3  Ber.  64  a,  refer,  to  Ps.  LXXXIV,  8 ;  comp.  Lazarus,  1.  c.,  p.  280. 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


A.  d.  R.  N . Aboth  di  Rabbi 


Nathan 

A.  T . Altes  Testament 

Ab.  Z . Aboda  Zarah 

Ag . Agada 

Ann . Annotations 

Ant . Antiquities  (of 

Josephus) 

Ap . Apionem,  contra 

Apoc . Apocalyptic 

Arak . Arakin 

Art . Article 

B . Babli  (Babylonian) 

b . ben 

B.  B . Baba  Bathra 

B.  H . Beth  ha  Midrash 

B.  K . Baba  Kamma 

B.  M . Baba  Metzia 

Beitr . Beitraege 

Ber . Berakoth 

Bibl . Bible  or  Biblical 


C.  C.  A.  R . Central  Conference 


of  American 
Rabbis 

Cant . Canticles 

Chron . Chronicles 

Ch . Chapter 

Comm . Commentary,  -ies 

Comp . Compare 

Cor . Corinthians, 

Epistle  to 


Dan . 

.  .Daniel 

Deut . 

.  .Deuteronomy 

Diet . 

.  .Dictionary 

Eccl . 

.  .Ecclesiastes 

Enc . 

.  .Encyclopedia 

( a )  Brit.  Britannia 

(b)  R.  a.  Eth.  . .  . 

of  Reli¬ 
gion  and 
Ethics 

Ep . 

. .  Epistle 

Eph . 

. .  Ephesians,  Epistle 
to 

Ethnol . 

.  .Ethnologische 

Ex . 

.  .Exodus 

Ez . 

. .  Ezekiel 

G.  J . 

. .  Geschichte  der 

Juden  (Graetz) 

G.  Jud . 

.  .Geschichte  des 

Judenthums 
(Jost) 

G.  V.  I . 

. .  Geschichte  des 

Volkes  Israel 

(Schuerer) 

Gal . 

. .  Galatians,  Epistle 
to 

Gen . 

. .  Genesis 

Ges.  Abh. . . . 

. .  Gesammelte  Ab- 
handlungen 

Ges.  Schrf. . . 

. .  Gesammelte 
Schriften 

493 


494 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


Gesch.  u.  Lit. . .  Geschichte  und 


Literature 

Gottesd . Gottesdienstliche 

H . Hilkoth 

H.  B . Handbuch 

H.  J . History  of  Jews 

(Graetz) 


H.  U.  C . Hebrew  Union  Col¬ 


lege 

Hab . Habakkuk 

Hag . Hagigah 

Hist . History 

Hor . Horayoth 

Hul . Hullin 

Introd . Introduction 

Isai . Isaiah 

Israel . Israelitisch 

J . Journal 

J.  E . Jewish  Encyclo¬ 

pedia 


J.  Q.  R . Jewish  Quarterly 


Review 

J.  W . Jewish  War  (Jose¬ 

phus) 

Jahrb . Jahrbuch 

Jer . Jeremiah 

Jew . Jewish 

Josh . Joshua 

Jud . Judenthums 

Judg . Judges 

Jued . Juedisch 


K.  A.  T . “Die  Keilinschrif- 


ten  und  das  Alte 
Testament” 

Ker . Kerithoth 

Keth . Kethuboth 


Kil . Kilayim 

L . Literature 

1.  c . loco  citato,  the 

same  place ; 
libro  citato,  the 
same  book  (for 
the  usual  o.  c.  = 
opere  citato). 


Lam . 

.Lamentations 

Lev . 

.  Leviticus 

M.  K . 

.Moed  Katan 

Macc . 

.Maccabees,  Book 
of 

Maim . 

.  Maimonides 

Mak . 

.  Makkoth 

Mai . 

.  Malachi 

Mas . 

.  Masseketh 

Meg . 

.Megillah 

Mek . 

.  Mekiltha 

Men . 

.  Menahoth 

Mid . 

.  Midrash 

Mtschr . 

.  Monatschrift  fuer 
Geschichte  und 
Wissenschaft  des 
Judenthums 

Mitth . 

.  Mittheilungen 

Nachgel-Schr. 

.Nachgelassene 

Schriften 

Neh . 

.Nehemiah 

Nid . 

.Niddah 

Numb . 

.  Numbers 

P.  d.  R.  El. .  .  .  Pirke  di  Rabbi 


Eliezer 

Pars . Parsisch 

Pes . Pesahim,  -ee 

Pes.  R . Pesikta  Rabbathi 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


495 


Pesik . Pesikta  di  Rab 

Kahana 

Phil . Philosophy  or  Phil¬ 

osophical 

Prov . Proverbs 

Prot . Protestantisch 

Ps . Psalms 

Psych . Psychologisch 

Quel . Quellen 

R . Rabbah,  also 

Rabbi,  Rabban 

R.  h.  Sh . Rosh  ha  Shanah 

R.  W.  B . Real-Woerterbuch 

ref . referring  or  ref¬ 

erence 

Rel . Religion 

S.  O . Seder  Olam 

s.  v . sub  verbo 

Sam . Samuel 

Sanh . Sanhedrin 

Sh.  A . Shulhan  Aruk 

Shab . Shabuoth 

Sibyl . Sibylline  Books 

Slav . Slavonic 


Soc . Society 

Stud . Studien  or  Studies 

Suk . Sukkah 

Syst . System  or  Sys¬ 

tematic 


T.  d.  b.  E . Tanna  di  be  Eliahu 


Tanh . Tanhuma 

Teh . Tehillim 

Theol . Theologisch 

Tos . Tosefta 

Tosaf . Tosafoth 

u . und  or  ueber 

W.  B . Woerterbuch 

Wiss . Wissenschaft  or 

Wissenschaftlich 

Yalk . Yalkut 

Y.  B . Yearbook 

Yeb . Yebamoth 

Yer . Yerushalmi 

Zech . Zechariah 

Zeitschr . Zeitschrift 


f 


INDEX 


Aaronites,  344  f. 

Ab,  Ninth  of,  461,  469 
Abba  Areka 
See  Rab 

Abbahu,  153,  422 
Abelson,  245,  271,  422 
Ablat,  403 

Abraham,  32,  62,  65  f.,  112,  114,  219,  259, 
292,  329,  336  f.,  417 

Abraham  ben  David  of  Posquieres,  14,  81, 
237,  387 

Abraham  ibn  Daud,  22,  68,  136,  178, 
292 

Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  97,  152,  188,  190,  194, 
273 

Abrahams,  Israel,  192,  346,  348 
Abravanel,  Isaac,  27 
Abstinence 
See  Asceticism 
Abulafia,  Abr.,  431 

Adam,  222-230,  244,  252;  heavenly,  437 

Adonai,  59,  61,  221  f.,  359 

Affliction,  130 

Ahha,  R.,  224 

Ahriman,  301,  382  f. 

Akiba,  R.,  14,  26,  32,  50,  126,  130  f.,  150, 
176,  216,  222,  232,  257,  259,  311,  361, 
467 

Albo,  Joseph,  24-26,  163  f.,  272  f.,  294, 
309-339 

Alenu,  57,  331,  341,  477 
Alfarabi,  68 
Allegory,  116,  224,  268 
Alpha  and  Omega,  137 
Altruism,  482 
Am  haaretz,  347,  358 
Amos,  248,  264,  324 
A«axorasy>37,  67,  84 
Angels,  81,  1 80-1 88 
Anger 

See  Wrath 
Animals,  489 

Anselm  of  Canterbury,  68 
Anthropology,  204 


Anthropomorphism,  74-76,  115  f. 
Antigonos  of  Soko,  480 
Antinomian,  428,  439 
Antoninus,  403,  422 
Apicoros  —  Epicurean,  21,  65 
Apocalyptic  books,  12  f.,  232  f.,  283 
Apocryphal  books,  12  f. 

Apologetics,  4 
Apostate,  6,  424  f. 

Apostles,  435 
Apostolic  convention,  436 
Aquilas,  286,  421 
Arelim,  402 
Aristeas,  347 

Aristotelian,  38,  68,  75,  89,  153,  162,  172, 
291 

Aristotle,  1,  67,  84,  87,  152,  215,  359, 
4°5 

Arnold,  Matthew,  121,  13 1 
Art,  480  f. 

Articles  of  faith,  19-28 
Aryan,  9,  58 

Asceticism,  150,  189,  318,  490 
Asenath,  416 
Assimilation,  12,  396 
Atheism,  65,  67 
Atonement,  254 
Atonement,  Day  of,  466-469 
Attributes  of  God 
See  God 

Aub,  Joseph,  446 
Autonomy  of  morality,  491 
Azazel,  190,  194,  466 
Azkarah,  263 

Babylonian,  n,  15,  75,  118,  128,  140,  181, 
220,  240,  356 
Bacher,  W.,  76 
Bahya  ben  Asher,  486 
Bahya  b.  Joseph  ibn  Pakudah,  3,  68,  175, 
291,  473 

Banquet  of  the  pious  in  the  future,  305 

Baptism,  417,  436 

Bar  Kochba,  361,  384,  385 


2  K 


498 


INDEX 


Bathing 
See  Baptism 
Bath  Kol,  201 
Beck,  L.,  15 
Beecher,  W.  J.,  42 
Belief,  20,  65 
See  also  Faith 
Ben  Azzai,  124,  311,  480 
Ben  Sira,  13,  40,  232,  282,  and  elsewhere 
Ben  Zoma,  312 

Benedictions,  Eighteen,  135,  192,  284,  297 

Benevolence,  319,  485 

Bentwich,  N.,  140,  290 

Bergson,  H.,  71,  154 

Bernays,  J.,  49,  412 

Beroka,  R.,  490 

Berosus,  213 

Bertholet,  A.,  409 

Beruria,  no,  396 

Bezold,  C.,  194 

Biblical  canon,  11,  43,  201 

Bloch,  M.,  12 

Bloch,  Ph.,  23,  236 

Blood,  48,  123 

Body,  209,  214 

Boeklen,  E.,  302  f. 

Bousset,  W.,  19,  43  f.,  61  f.,  74,  84,  123, 
128,  143  f.,  185,  195,  246,  252,  303 
Breath  of  life,  212 
Brugsch,  H.,  288 
Buddha,  405,  478 

Cabbalah,  203,  244,  294,  473 
Calendar,  Jewish,  460 
Calvin,  195 
Caro,  Joseph,  56 
Cassel,  D.,  214,  236,  489 
Celibacy,  313,  316 
Ceremonies,  346,  449  ff. 

Charles,  R.  H.,  283 
Cheerfulness,  318,  490 
Cheyne,  T.  K.,  409 
Christian  Science,  178 
Christian  theology,  5,  123,  192,  248,  252  f., 
304,  347,  355 

Christian  trinity,  56,  86,  n6f.,  441  f. 
Christianity,  17,  41,  54,  116,  329,  427 
Christianity,  Paulinian,  12,  51,  116,  439 
Christ  (os),  86,  221,  433,  437 
Church’s  providential  mission,  444 
Circumcision,  50,  346,  402,  416,  449  f. 
Civilization,  316 
Clemens,  Flavius,  421 
Cohen,  Hermann,  196 
Commerce,  Jewish,  364 


Compassion  of  God 
See  God 

Compassion  of  man,  126 
Condescension  of  God 
See  God 

Confession,  5,  20,  192 
Confirmation,  449,  463,  473 
Confucius,  405,  478 
Conscience,  30,  64 
Consciousness,  Man’s,  of  God,  29 
Continuity  of  soul 
See  Immortality 
Continuity  with  the  past,  14 
Conversion,  418,  423 
Cosmogony,  148  f. 

Cosmology,  141 
Cosmos,  68,  146 

Covenant,  God’s,  48,  51,  157-161,  235-270, 
322 

Creation,  147-153 
Creative  principles,  203 
Credo,  22-25,  3* 

Crescas,  Hasdai,  24  f.,  131,  163,  172,  194, 
236  f.,  293,  308  f. 

Critical  research  of  Bible 
See  Historical  research 
Cross,  438 
Culture,  319,  363 
Curtiss,  S.  I.,  454 
Cuzari 

See  Jehuda  ha  Levi 
Cyrus,  85,  334 

Dama  ben  Nethina,  399 
Daniel,  288 
Darwin,  154 
David,  242,  291 
David  ben  Zimra,  27 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  83,  115  f.,  139,  167, 182  f., 
247,  370 

Day  of  judgment,  394 
Day  of  the  Lord 
See  JHVH,  Day  of 
Death,  85,  177,  278  f. 

Deism,  79 
Delitzsch,  Fried.,  6 
Dembitz,  L.  N.,  269 
Demons,  190  ff. 

Descartes,  68 
Determinism,  255,  330  ] 
Deutero-IsaiahT^i,  85,  267,  336,  369 
Dietary  laws,  346,  451  f. 

Dillmann,  A.,  30  f„  59,  83  ff.,  157  ff.,  231 
Doctrine,  47 

Doellinger,  J.  J.  I.  v.,  54 


i 


INDEX 


X 


Dorner,  A.,  6,  18 
Dosithean,  13 
Draper,  J.  W.,  88 
Drummond,  J.,  69,  72  f.,  99  f. 

Dualism,  85  f.,  178,  184,  189,  214,  220,  438 
Dubno,  S.,  7 
Duran,  Simon,  24 
Duty,  478 

Duty  to  fellow  man,  319,  484 
Duty  to  self,  482 

Ecclesiastical,  5,  16 
Ecstasy,  38 
Edom  —  Rome,  430 

Einhorn,  David,  viii,  389,  446,  453  f.,  461 
Elbogen,  I.,  269 
Eleazar  ben  Pedath,  329 
Election  of  Israel 
See  Israel 

Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos,  50,  257,  305,  316, 

4°3,  4i9 
Elijah,  46,  49 
Elisha  ben  Abuyah,  118 
Elohim,  57  f.,  180  f.,  210,  405 
Emden,  Jacob,  427 
Enoch,  232,  336 
Eschatology 
See  Future  life 
Eschelbacher,  J.,  15 

Essenes,  12,  40,  163,  183,  185,  191,  316, 
419,  434,  481,  489  f. 

Eternity,  98  f. 

Ethics,  69,  120,  398,  477,  49i 
Euken,  R.,  195 
Evil,  176,  179 
Evil,  Spirits  of,  189-196 
Evolution,  11,  36,  100 
Exile,  Babylonian,  10  f.,  266 
Ezekiel,  13,  105,  221,  249,  283,  299,  337  f., 
345,  392  f. 

Ezra,  10  f.,  17 

Faith,  19  f. 

Faithfulness  of  God 
See  God 

Faithfulness  of  Israel 
See  Israel 
Falashas,  13,  457 
Family  life,  316 
Fasting,  483 
Fate,  168 

Fatherhood  of  God,  256-260 
Fear  of  God,  29 
Feast  of  Weeks 
See  Shabuoth 


Felsenthal,  B.,  19 
Festivals,  461-470 
Finality,  6,  475  f. 

Finkelscherer,  194 
Flesh,  212 

Formalism,  351,  473 

Foster,  62,  271 

Frank  el,  Z.,  3,  43 

Frederick  II,  444 

Freedom  of  will,  171  f.,  231,  237 

Friedlander,  G.,  438 

Friendship,  318 

Future  life,  281-308 


Gabirol,  Solomon  Ibn,  80,  89,  98,  14 1,  187 
Gamaliel,  77,  97,  129,  152,  289 
Gehenna,  no 

Geiger,  Abraham,  viii,  2,  12,  14  ff.,  35,43, 
58,  no,  201,  446,  453,  472 
Genius,  35,  103 
Ger,  50,  409  ff . 

See  also  Proselyte 
Gershom  ben  Jehuda,  472 
Gersonides,  13,  156,  194,  236 
Ginzberg,  Asher,  7 
Gnosticism,  86,  141,  153,  427 
God,  ,52-145 

God  no'  abstraction,  78,  143 
God  of  the  fathers,  16 
God’s„  condescension,  72,  81,  142-144 
essence,  72-81 
eternity,  98-100 
existence,  64-71 
faithfulness,  134-137 
fatherhood,  256-260  ^ 
foreknowledge,  105,  167 
goodness,  126,  132 
grace,  114  f.,  246  f. 
holiness,  100-109,  149  f. 
immanence,  79  f.,  98 
incorporeality 
See  Spirituality 
jealousy,  54,  83,  105 
justice,  118,  125 
kingdom 

See  Kingdom  of  God 
knowledge,  138-141 
mercy,  113 
names,  58,  63,  291 
omnipotence,  91-95 
omnipresence,  96-98 
omniscience,  93-95 
personality,  73-76,  98,  106,  144 
relation  to  the  world,  146-151 
self-consciousness,  73 


S°o 


INDEX 


God’s,  —  Continued 

spirit,  97-200;  in  man,  216-230 
spirituality,  22,  74-78 
supermundaneity,  99 
transcendence,  74  f.,  100 
truthfulness,  134-13  7 
unity,  82-90,  96  f.,  105 
wisdom,  138  f. 
wrath  and  punishment,  107 
God-childship,  Man’s,  27 
God-consciousness,  Man’s,  29-31 
Gods,  Heathen,  53,  113,  136,  177 
Goel,  256 

Gog  and  Magog,  381,  383 
Golden  rule,  484 
Goldziher,  I.,  22,  441 
Goodness,  126,  132,  150 
Goy,  400 
Grace  of  God 
See  God 

Graetz,  H.,  7,  43,  416,  472 
Greek  church,  429 
ethics,  443 

philosophy,  12,  23,  66  f.,  84  f.,  315 
wisdom,  336 
Gressmann,  H.,  378 
Guedemann,  M.,  42,  355 
Guttmann,  J.,  22,  306 

Habakkuk,  334 
Haftarah,  357 

Haggada  and  Halakah,  12  f. 

Hananel,  R.,  21 

Haninah  ben  Dosa,  163,  165,  273 
Hanukkah,  469 
Harnack,  A.,  413 
Harper,  R.  F.,  190 
Hartmann,  E.  v.,  78 

Hasidim  and  Hasidean,  62,  127,  163,  266  f., 
283,  289,  308,  344,  481 
Hatred,  398 

Heathenism,  52,  57,  83  f.,  176,  399  f.,  403 
Hebrew,  16,  470  f. 

Helbo,  R.,  421 
Helen  of  Adiabene,  416 
Hellenism,  23,  335 

Hellenistic  Judaism,  233,  289,  303,  339, 
414 

literature,  12,  258 
philosophy,  232 

propaganda,  251  f.,  334,  415  f.,  436 
Herford,  R.  T.,  439 
Hezekiah,  281 

Hillel,  127,  209,  304,  335,  360,  418,  423, 
481  ff. 


Hillel,  R.,  388 

Hillul  and  Kiddush  hashem,  348  f. 

Hirsch,  E.  G.,  19,  458,  480 
Hirsch,  Samson  Raphael,  269,  453 
Hirsch,  S.  A.,  407 
Hirsch,  Samuel,  viii,  446 
Historical  research,  4,  12,  46 
Hochmuth,  A.,  23  f. 

Holdheim,  Samuel,  viii,  462 
Holiness,  102,  109,  477  f.,  491 
Holiness,  God’s 
See  God 

Holiness,  Levitical,  104 
Holy  Land 
See  Palestine 
Holy  spirit,  11,  200  f. 

Horowitz,  S.,  22  f.,  37 
Horwitz,  Sabbathai,  14 
Hosea,  29,  49,  114L,  249,  257,  264,  324, 
333 

Humanity,  51,  310,  315,  398,  475 
Husik,  37,  68  ff.,  214  f.,  291  f. 

Ibn  Daud 

See  Abraham  ibn  Daud 
Ibn  Ezra 

See  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra 
Ibn  Sina,  68 
Ibn  Verga,  431 
Ihering,  R.  v.,  409 
Imitatio  Dei,  477,  479,  490 
Immanence  of  God 
See  God 

Immortality,  24,  286,  297 
Individual  man,  310 
Industry,  317 
Inspiration,  39  f. 

Institution  of  the  synagogue 
See  Synagogue 
Intercession,  200  f.,  406  f. 

Intermarriage,  444  f. 

Intermediary  powers,  197-205 
Internationalism,  321  f. 

Intolerance,  404  f. 

Isaac  ben  Shesheth,  171,  427 
Isaac  Napaha,  428 
Isaiah,  244,  264,  328,  333,  397 
Ishmael,  430 

Islam,  17,  41,  86  f.,  329,  427,  441  f. 

Islam’s  mission,  444 
Israel,  389  f.,  397 
Israel’s,  characteristics,  326  f. 
commerce,  364 
consecration,  37 
election,  37,  323-330 


INDEX 


S°i 


Israel’s,  —  Continued 
hope,  378-391,  392-396 
martyrdom,  33,  130,  349,  367-377 
mission,  328-341,  352-354 
cultural,  363 
priesthood,  342-353 
prophetic  genius,  39,  103,  122,  372 
relation  to  the  nations,  9,  397-407 
separateness,  8,  347  £.,  364,  374,  445  f., 
452 

world-duty,  16 

JHVH  — Jahveh,  45,  59,  63,  72,  114,  117, 
202,  280 

JHVH,  Day  of,  122 
James,  Wm.,  271 
Jastrow,  J.,  296 
Jastrow,  Morris,  128 
Jealousy  of  God 
See  God 

Jehuda  ha  Levi,  25,  38,  70,  105,  no,  141, 
163,  187,  194,  228,  291,  329,  339,  426, 

431,  475 

Jehuda  ha  Nasi,  128,  302,  305,  403 
Jellinek,  210 

Jeremiah,  30,  45,  126,  249,  252,  257,  265, 
320,  410 

Jerusalem,  335,  365,  423 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  46,  433  f. 

Jew  and  Jewry,  7  f.,  359,  364,  376 
Jew  hatred,  9 
Jewish  nationality,  8 
Jewish  religion 
See  Judaism 

Job,  32,  124,  281,  319,  370,  372,  484 
Joel,  250 
Joel,  D.,  187 

Joel,  M.,  3,  86,  131,  161,  163,  196,  307  f. 
Johanan,  R.,  79,  306,  309,  327 
Johanan  ben  Zakkai,  222,  258,  403 
John  the  Baptist,  434 
John  Hyrcanus,  419 
Jonah,  127,  250 
Jose,  R.,  46,  227 
Joseph  Ibn  Zaddik,  136 
Joseph,  Morris,  116,  179,  405,  420,  453  f., 
458,  489 

Josephus,  21,  46  f.,  137,  233,  405,  413, 
420 

Joshua  ben  Hananiah,  77,  305,  340,  422, 

432,  453,  455 
Jost,  M.,  7 

Joy  of  life,  318,  490 
Juda  Ibn  Balag,  144 
Judseo-Christians,  427  f.,  439 


Judaism,  Modern  or  progressive,  51,  104, 
342,  364,  422,  445 
Judaism,  Rabbinic,  143 
Judan,  R.,  186 
Justice,  118-124,  485  f. 

Justice,  Social,  122,  487 

Kaddish,  304,  331 

Kant,  Immanuel,  65,  69,  189 

Karaites,  22,  87,  475 

Kaufmann,  David,  22  f.,  68  f.,  80,  97,  105, 
153,  195  ff. 

Kedusha,  192 
Kiddush  hashem,  348  f. 

Kingdom  of  God,  33 1-34 1,  491 
Klein,  J.,  412,  436,  482 
Knowledge  of  God,  29 
Knowledge,  God’s 
See  God 
Koeberle,  117 
Koheleth,  124 

Kohler,  K.,  20,  32,  44,  267,  304,  405,  438, 

447,  453  f- 
Kohler,  M.  J.,  409 
Kohut,  Alex.,  42,  199 
Krauskopf,  J.,  443 
Kremer,  A.  v.,  22,  87 
Kuenen,  A.,  337 

Labor,  224,  317 
Lame  and  blind  parable,  302 
Landsberg,  M.,  473 
Lange,  F.  A.,  87 

Lauterbach,  J.  Z.,  439,  482  ff.,  486 
Law,  45-47,  355-358 
Lazarus,  L.,  106 

Lazarus,  M.,  14,  101,  106,  349,  477  f. 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  345,  364,  443 

Leo  Hebraeus,  13 1 

Leo  da  Modena,  14 

Lessing,  E.  G.,  430 

Levi,  R.,  268 

Levkovits,  M.,  178 

Life  a  battle,  282 

Loew,  Leopold,  22,  27,  472 

Loewe  ben  Bezalel,  228 

Logos,  198  f. 

Love,  31  f.,  121,  126-131,  484 
Love,  God’s 
See  God 

Loyalty  to  country,  319  f. 

Luria,  Isaac,  14 
Luther,  Martin,  195 
Luz,  288 

Luzzatto,  S.  D.,  23,  30 


5°2 


INDEX 


Maimonides,  3,  13,  22  f.,  30,  38,  72,  87, 
no,  138,  153,  162,  170,  178,  187,  194, 
224,  228,  236  f.,  268,  272,  307  f.,  321, 
339,  386  f.,  404,  426 
Makom,  62,  97 
Malachi,  249,  263 
Man,  182,  206-232 
Man,  child  of  God,  256,  260,  310 
Man’s,  brotherhood,  314,  321 
dual  nature,  2 12-2 17 
destiny  and  origin,  218-230 
fall,  221-225 

freedom  of  will,  208,  231-237 
individuality,  208 
perfectibility,  210,  491 
self-consciousness,  35,  216 
Manasseh,  King,  211,  251 
Manasseh  ben  Israel,  339 
Mankind,  3 10-3 15 
Margolis,  Max,  2 
Martyrdom  of  Israel 
See  Israel 
Mazdaism 
See  Persian 

Measure  for  measure,  1 24 
Medieval  Jewry,  361  f.,  376,  386,  455 
Meir,  R.,  77,  151,  154,  258,  260,  273,  356, 
403,  450,  453 
Memra 
See  Logos 

Mendelssohn,  M.,  vii,  19,  30,  68,  142, 
165,  295 
Mercy  of  God 
See  God 
Merkabah,  187 

Messianic  hope,  8,  334  f.,  378,  389,  445 
Messianic  kingdom,  426 
Messiah,  25,  333  f.,  373,  382  f.,  389, 
400 

Metaphysical,  65,  100,  105 
Metatron  —  Mithras,  185,  199 
Micah,  218,  328 
Microcosm,  209 
Mielziner,  M.,  446 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  189 
Milton,  J.,  195 

Minim  —  Heretics,  86,  424  ff. 

Miracle,  36,  160-166 
Misanthropy,  9,  398 
Mission  of  Israel 
See  Israel 
Modesty,  490 
Mohammed,  429  f„  441  f. 

Mohammedan  religion 
See  Islam 


Mohammedan  theology,  2,  24,  37,  68,  87 
141,  162,  171,  236 
Monotheism,  55-183 
Absolute,  428 
Ethical,  23,  54,  69,  415 
Montefiore,  Claude  G.,  42,  246,  348,  438, 
449 

Month,  459 
Moral  order,  1 19-123 
Morgenstern,  J.,  239 
Mosaic  code,  335,  345,  414 
cult,  263-268 
law,  13,  16,  26,  104 
Mosaism,  283 

Moses,  35-37,  46,  113  f-,  228,  232  ff., 
240  f. 

Mueller,  Max,  58 
Mutuality,  488 

Mysticism  and  mystics,  3,  14,  36,  89,  131, 
136,  157,  473 

Naaman,  414 

Nahmanides,  194,  224,  244,  294,  307,  426 
Nahum  of  Gimzo,  151,  163 
Names  of  God,  58-63 
Nationalism,  Jewish,  13  f.,  335 
Nationality,  Jewish,  8 
Nature,  148,  156 
Nature’s  laws,  135,  187 
Neoplatonism,  2,  37,  87,  92 
Nestorians,  443 
Nether  world,  279 
See  also  Sheol 

Neumark,  David,  19,  22,  70,  92,  98,  172, 
284,  297,  406 

New  Year’s  Day,  465-468 
Nieto,  David,  80 
Nirvana,  479 
Noah,  336,  452 

Noahitic  laws,  48-51,  no,  404,  412  f.,  427 
Nomism,  13,  44,  355 
Nomos  —  Law,  43 

Oath,  120 

Objective  and  subjective  truths,  3 
OEnomaos  of  Gadara,  403 
Onias  the  Saint,  165,  268,  273 
Ontological  proof 
See  God’s  existence 
Optimism,  132,  179,  251 
Order,  Moral,  of  the  world,  167 
Orientalism,  470  f. 

Origin,  374 
Orthodoxy,  11,  46 

Otherworldliness,  124,  352,  395,  440,  489 


INDEX 


5°3 


Pain,  176 

Palestine,  3,  38,  335,  394 
Pantheism,  80 

Paradise  legend,  177,  207,  219,  278 
Parseeism 
See  Persian 
Particularism,  446 
Passover,  461  f. 

Patriotism,  320 

Paul  and  Paulinian  dogma,  25,  50  f.,  116, 
21,  259,  355,  417,  428,  437,  440 
Peace,  379,  491 
Pentecost  miracle,  359 
Perles,  F.,  350 

Persian,  85,  140,  184-191,  283  ff.,  300  f. 
Personality  of  God 
See  God 

Pessimism,  150,  439  f. 

Pharaoh,  55 

Pharisaic  and  Pharisees.  12,  20,  189,  233  f., 
"2 "83  f.^02,  344  f.,  413,  418,  439,  457 
Philanthropy,  486  f. 

Philippson,  Ludwig,  165,  210,  444,  446 
Philipson,  David,  269,  297,  389,  446,  458 
Philo,  21,  67,  72,  80,  186,  189,  194,  198, 
203,  214  f.,  233  f.,  268,  290,  294,  351, 
405,  413,  423,  439,  452,  457,  485 
Philosophy,  Greek,  66 
Hindoo,  209 
Jewish,  2 

Philosophy  of  religion,  70 
Phineas  ben  Yair,  163,  165 
Phylacteries 
See  Tefillin 

Plato,  84,  209  f.,  215,  405 
Platonism,  141,  285,  289  f. 

Ploss,  H.,  449  f. 

Porter,  F.  Ch.,  215 
Prayer,  261-277 
Predetermination,  232 
Preexistence  of  the  Soul,  289 
Priest,  343  f. 

Priest  code,  263,  351 
Priest,  High,  317,  466 
Priesthood  of  Israel 
See  Israel 

Profanation  of  name 
See  Hillul  ha  Shem 
Propaganda,  51,  412-419 
Prophecy,  35,  38 
Prophetic  books,  42 
Proselyte,  336  f.,  41 1-423 
Protestantism,  363 
Providence,  167-175 
Psalmist,  10,  13,  60,  265,  299,  309,  480 


Psychology,  187,  204 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  347 
Punishment,  Divine 
See  Retribution 
Purgatory,  304 
Purim,  470 

Purity,  146,  153,  291,  490 
Pythagoras,  146,  291 

Rab-Abba  Areka,  203,  305  f. 

Rabba,  428 
Rabbinism,  283 
Radin,  M.,  416 
Rashi,  312,  388 

Rationalism,  13,  38,  89,  450,  474 
Rauwenhoff,  L.  W.  E.,  2,  65,  101,  106 
Redemption,  Religion  of,  17,  195 
Reform  Judaism,  269,  330,  340,  389 
Reform  liturgy,  269,  297,  340,  389,  469 
Reformation,  363,  444 
Reizenstein,  R.,  310 
Religion,  Absolute,  19 
Religion’s  unifying  power,  15,  315,  321,  491 
Repentance,  246,  257 

Responsibility,  233  f.,  246,  255,  337,  488- 
491 

Resurrection,  282-285,  292,  297  f.,  392,  396 
Retribution,  107-m,  298 
Revelation,  23,  34,  41,  147 
Reward  and  punishment 
See  Retribution 
Rhode,  E.,  290 
Ritschl,  A.  B.,  74 
Ritualism,  13 
Roman  church,  428  f. 

Rome,  401 
Rosenau,  Wm.,  447 
Rosin,  D.,  30 
Ruth,  336,  417 

Saadia,  68,  97,  162,  187,  194,  224,  236,  274, 
290,  307 

Sabbath,  50,  346,  455-460 
Sachs,  M.,  80,  89,  141 
Sacrament,  448 
Sacrifice,  261-270 

Sadduceeism  and  Sadducees,  12  f.,  127, 
284,  300,  434,  439,  456 
Salvation,  5,  20,  258,  402 
Samaritans,  13,  373,  420,  454 
Samuel,  241 

Samuel  of  Nehardea,  127,  320,  386,  403, 
420 

Sanctification  of  the  name,  484 
Satan,  86,  189-195,  300 


5°4 


INDEX 


Schechter,  S.,  3,  6,  13,  19,  27,  76,  78,  145, 
208,  223,  239,  263,  275,  323,  348,  455, 
458 

Scheyer,  S.,  214,  292 

Schiller,  Fr.,  132 

Schlesinger,  W.  and  L.,  19 

Schmiedl,  37,  90  ff.,  155  f.,  197  ff.,  393 

Schreiber,  E.,  27 

Schreiner,  M.,  19,  78,  103,  431 

Schuerer,  E.,  159,  410,  413,  416,  448 

Schulman,  S.,  364,  445 

Science,  Modern,  128,  139,  147  f.,  2x5 

Scripture,  11,  40,  43 

Seeberg,  A.,  412,  436 

Sefiroth,  Ten,  203 

Self-conquest,  483 

Self-elevation  versus  self-extinction,  479 
Seligman,  C.,  71,  155,  179 
Semikah,  12 

Semites  and  Semitic,  68,  104,  347 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  438 
Serpent,  193,  221  f. 

Servant  of  the  Lord,  324,  367-375 
Seventy  languages,  359 
Seventy  nations,  403,  464 
Shabuoth  —  Feast  of  the  Weeks,  462 
Shaddai,  59 

Shammai  and  Shammaite,  235,  335, 

418  f. 

Shekinah,  46,  97,  183,  197,  204 
Shema,  20,  57,  61,  426 
Sheol,  279  f. 

See  also  Nether  world 
Siegfried,  C.,  80  f.,  203 
Simeon  ben  Eleazar,  416 
Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  418 
Simeon  ben  Lakish,  306 
Simeon  ben  Shetach,  350 
Simeon  ben  Yohai,  163,  349 
Simhat  Torah,  464 
Simlai,  R.,  27,  287,  319,  356 
Simon  the  Just,  345,  357 
Sin,  231-345 

Sin,  Original,  221-223,  244 
Sinai,  53,  60 
Slavery,  42,  146 
Smith,  W.  R.,  58,  409 
Sociability,  318 
Social  justice,  487 
Society,  318  f. 

Socrates,  37,  405 
Solomon  ben  Adret,  426 
Soul,  24,  212  f.,  286  f. 

Spiegel,  F.,  63 
Spinoza,  B.,  80,  13 1,  309 


Spirit  of  God 
See  God 
Spirit,  Holy,  11 
Spirituality  of  God 
See  God 
Spitta,  F.,  434 
Stade,  B.,  42 
Stanley,  A.  P.,  454 
State,  Duty  to  the,  319 
Stave,  E.,  302 
Stein,  L.,  340,  389 
Steinschneider,  M.,  273,  430  f. 

Steinthal,  IL,  146 
Stoics,  xio,  198,  315 
Stranger,  408-411 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  19,  67  f.,  74,  83  f.,  96  f., 
101  f.,  119,  i53  f->  195 
Suffering,  130 
Suffering,  Israel’s 
See  Martyrdom 
Suicide,  484 
Sukkoth  festival,  463 
Sunday,  451  f.,  459 
Symbolum  Apostolicum,  5 
Synagogal  liturgy  and  worship,  277,  284, 
288,  389,  514 
Synagogue,  447,  475 

Synagogue,  Men  of  the  Great,  40,  79,  201 

Tabernacles,  Feast  of 
See  Sukkoth 
Taeb,  373 
Tallith,  454 
Tamar,  417 
Tefillin,  346,  453  f. 

Teleological  proof 
See  God’s  existence 
Temple,  Destruction  of 
See  Ab,  Ninth  of 
Teshubah 

See  Repentance 
Theism,  8 
Theocracy,  342 
Theology,  1-6 

Theology,  Christian,  5-6,  342 
Theology,  Mohammedan 
See  Mohammedan 

This-worldliness,  Jewish,  17,  124,  477 
Tihamat,  193,  220 
Time,  99 

Torah,  11,  23,  42-47,  199,  354  ff. 

Torah,  Reading  from  the,  470 
Toy,  C.  H.,  480 
Tradition,  12,  14,  43,  46 
Transcendentalism,  143 


INDEX 


505 


Trinity 

See  Christian  trinity 
Trumbull,  H.  Clay,  461 
Truth,  136 
Truthfulness  of  God 
See  God 

Tylor,  E.  B.,  286,  449 

Unifying  power,  15 
Unity  of  God,  82-90 
of  man,  321,  339  f. 
of  the  cosmos,  149 
Universalism,  8,  13,  48,  51,  396,  445 
Universe,  146 

Values  of  life,  489 
Vernacular,  357 

Virtue,  Hereditary,  328,  406,  489 
Vision,  Prophetic 
See  Prophecy 

Water  libation,  464 

Weber,  F.,  45,  61,  78,  86, 117,  123,  126, 143, 
145,  223,  246,  252,  361 
Weiss,  Isaac  Plirsch,  43,  54 
Wells,  H.  G.,  71 
White,  Andrew  D.,  443 
Will,  Freedom  of,  138  f.,  199 
Windelband-Tufts,  67  ff.,  290 
Windishman,  Fr.,  305 
Wisdom,  45,  140 
Wisdom  of  God 
See  God 


Wisdom,  Book  of,  66 
Wisdom  literature,  60 
Wise,  Isaac  M.,  423,  473 
Woman,  222,  472  f. 

World,  Infinitude  of,  154,  159 
Moral  government  of,  171  f. 

Order  of,  157 
Worlds,  Two,  159 
Wrath  of  God 
See  God 

Wuensche,  A.,  430,  439 

Xenophanes,  84 

Yavan,  424 
Yethro,  417 

Yezer  ha  ra  and  ha  tob,  193,  215,  223,  239. 

Zealot,  12,  334,  360 
Zebulon  and  Issachar,  364 
Zechariah,  249,  334,  410,  464 
Zedakah,  121,  486 
Zekuth  Aboth,  406 
Zeller,  E.,  310 
Zerubbabel,  330,  370,  380 
Zidduk  ha  Din,  125 
Zimmels,  13 1 
Zimmern,  H.,  103,  170 
Zionism,  390,  395 
Zizith,  454 
Zoroastrianism 
See  Persian 

Zunz,  Leopold,  41,  43,  367,  450,  471 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


//  7->  p 

!/  7Jr?~ 


DATE  DUE 

. 

a 

n.M.  ,Mlt, .,,  mi 

l> 

$ss«i$S3@9K!'' 

gaVlord 

PRINTED  IN  U..S.  A. 

o 


V,  *SS> 

/6*4* 


1656 


2  96 
K82 
cop,  2 


Kohler 

Jewish  theology 


